Mark Whitcombe continues his examination of the approach to striking out
The first part of this series considered both applications to strike out on the basis that a claim or response is scandalous, vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success, and also applications to strike out on the basis that the manner in which proceedings have been conducted has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. This second part deals with the striking out of claims that have not been actively pursued, striking out for non-compliance with an order or practice direction, and striking out where it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing.
Claims which have not been actively pursued (r 18(7)(d))
Although the CPR did not retain the concept of dismissal for want of prosecution, an equivalent concept was preserved by the Employment Tribunal Rules. The applicable principles are therefore those identified by the House of Lords in the pre-CPR case of Birkett v James [1978] AC 297, [1977] 2 All ER 801 in relation to dismissal for want of prosecution. These were that there should be either:
- intentional
