Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is an application to reinstate two actions which were deemed discontinued under Rule 6/25(1). The Court granted the application on 10 th December 2020 and now gives brief reasons for its decision.
Both actions are personal injury claims arising out of an accident. Both actions were instituted in 2014 and adjourned sine die by consent on 28 th February 2014. The reason for this was that liability was unlikely to be in issue and it was agreed that it was too soon for the long-term consequences of the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs to be clear at that stage. It was clear therefore that resolution of both claims would have to await developments.
Discussions did take place with the representatives of the Second Defendant but on 19 th January 2016, this Court approved the decision of the Guardian ad Litem not to accept an offer put forward at that stage, on the basis that it was too soon in view of the many imponderables relating to the plaintiffs' injuries.
On 11 th February, 2019, both actions were deemed discontinued pursuant to RCR 6/25(1) which provides:-
"(1) When proceedings have been adjourned sine die, if at the expiration of 3 years from the date on which it was first so adjourned no further steps have been taken, the proceedings shall be deemed to have been withdrawn."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.