Plaintiff v Defendant (suit dismissed for want of prosecution application)
The bottom line
#Long delays don't automatically mean your case will be dismissed; the court must find intentional misconduct or severe prejudice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a 16-year-old suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution
The application was dismissed; the suit was not dormant and the delay was not shown to be intentional, contumelious or gravely prejudicial.
The court applied the Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine test: dismissal requires either intentional and contumelious default, or inordinate and inexcusable delay giving rise to a substantial risk of an unfair trial or serious prejudice. The record showed settlement negotiations, listings, removal from the hearing list at the Defendant's request and by consent, and a missing file conceded by the Defendant. Delay existed but the discretion was not established in the Defendants' favour.
Legal principles established
#- Dismissal for want of prosecution is a draconian remedy to be exercised only where the delay is intentional and contumelious, or inordinate, inexcusable and likely to cause serious prejudice or an unfair trial.
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 11th July 2006 and filed on 8th July 2006 is dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the suit.
- 3.A hearing date to be taken in the registry on priority basis.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order XVI Rule 5 (a) (c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plaintiff v Defendant (suit dismissed for want of prosecution application)", Case Analysis (2007). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.