Biguzzi Revisited

UCB Corporate Services Ltd (Formerly UCB Bank Plc) v Halifax (SW) Ltd (CA TLR 23 December)

Under the Civil Procedure Rules it is appropriate to strike out an action as an abuse of process where there is a wholesale disregard of the rules and court orders and it was just to do so. The more ready recognition that wholesale failure, as such, to comply with the rules justified an action being struck out, as long as it was just to do so, would avoid much time and expense being incurred in investigating questions of prejudice, and allowing the striking out of actions whether or not the limitation period has expired. The flouting of the rules and court orders is sufficiently serious to justify striking out. It is an approach entirely in line with the underlying purpose of the new rules. It would be ironic indeed if the Civil Procedure Rules and the judgment in Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc ([1999] 1 WLR 1926 and 18/LL p98) led judges to treat cases of delay with greater leniency than under the old procedure. That could not have been the intention of the Master of the Rolls in Biguzzi when he pointed out that there were lesser sanctions for delay than the Draconian step of striking out. Lesser sanctions were available in less serious cases but in more serious cases striking out was appropriate where justice required it.