Civil Action Question

ArthurJ

If A takes a High Court Civil Action, for damages, against B.
B is serves with a summons by A’s lawyer.
B personally enters a defence, nine years pass and B hears nothing more.


Can B, without retaining a lawyer, easily find out what’s happening?

Are there laws to prevent people instigating frivolous civil actions?

Tom Young

The question would be was it struck out? B can hire a lawyer to find out and yes there are bars to frivolous claims.

Rhonda9000

ArthurJ wrote: »

Can B, without retaining a lawyer, easily find out what’s happening?

Why would B take such an illogical step

ArthurJ

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Why would B take such an illogical step

Lets imagine that B is an elderly and unwell person, with little funds at his disposal.
He fears the cost of retaining a lawyer, yet he would like to know what’s happening with the case. That’s hardly illogical.

What’s really illogical is that A can start the action, then sit back and do nothing, ultimately, it seems, forcing B to spend money.

Our man in Havana

Would the case not get struck out if nothing is done?

ArthurJ

Tom Young wrote: »

The question would be was it struck out? B can hire a lawyer to find out and yes there are bars to frivolous claims.

What would cause it to be struck? What are the bars and how are they enforced?

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

Would the case not get struck out if nothing is done?

No, the defendant would have to bring a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

Details of what the status is of a case can be obtained from the central office of the high court. This service is also available online, but it is very technical so it would be better for the hypothetical person to speak to the central office directly.

As regards the retaining of a solicitor, motions to dismiss for want of prosecution are very complicated, and if someone brings one and loses, they risk alerting the other side to the delay and perhaps spur them on to bring the case forward. Also, if you win, you will be entitled to recover your legal costs.

ArthurJ

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, the defendant would have to bring a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

Details of what the status is of a case can be obtained from the central office of the high court. This service is also available online, but it is very technical so it would be better for the hypothetical person to speak to the central office directly.

As regards the retaining of a solicitor, motions to dismiss for want of prosecution are very complicated, and if someone brings one and loses, they risk alerting the other side to the delay and perhaps spur them on to bring the case forward. Also, if you win, you will be entitled to recover your legal costs.

That’s excellent. Thank you.

Our man in Havana

Can you make such a motion ex parte?

NUTLEY BOY

Bond-007 wrote: »

Can you make such a motion ex parte?

I should think not.

A is the other party and must be heard [ audit alterem partem].

A is effectively a notice party and the Notice of Motion must be served on A's solicitors as they are on record. If A's solicitors come off record then B might get an order for substituted service and proceed accordingly.

A might not turn up for the hearing of the motion but that is just his problem and his absence would not convert this into an ex parte application.

NUTLEY BOY

BTW OP I trust that A is not an infant or a person under other legal disability as these reasons can cause the time limits to be enlarged for continuing an action.

Bringing a Motion for Judgement sometimes wakes up sleeping litigants or manages to get the potential liability shifted from the original defendant on to the professional indemnity insurers of the plaintiff's solicitors

ArthurJ

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

BTW OP I trust that A is not an infant or a person under other legal disability as these reasons can cause the time limits to be enlarged for continuing an action.

In this scenario, A would be a mature adult of sound mind.

Victor

In such a case, at what point could the defendent simply claim "I have no idea what this is about" or claim it to be statute barred or similar?

dermot_sheehan

There is a differance between the statute of limitations (which is a definative time limit e.g. 1 year/6 years/12 years), during which a pleanary summons or civil bill must be issued and having a claim already in being struck out for want of prosecution. The statute of limitations tolls while a claimant is an infant or under a mental disability however since when a claimant who is under such a limitation takes a case, its by their next of friend, their age/mental status has no real impact on getting a claim struck out for want of prosecution.

Such a motion is always brought on notice.

Hobart

Victor wrote: »

In such a case, at what point could the defendent simply claim "I have no idea what this is about" or claim it to be statute barred or similar?

Devil and Detail come to mind.