header-logo header-logo

19 October 2010
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

Automatic stays

From when should an automatic stay run under CPR 26.4?

From when should an automatic stay run under CPR 26.4?

It may be several months from when the allocation questionnaires have been filed before they are judicially considered and it is often futile to run the stay from then.

The court must order a stay with a view to settlement negotiations where all the parties ask for one in their allocation questionnaires (as distinct from its general  power to order a stay for whatever period it considers appropriate, whether or not the parties ask for or agree to one).

What is no longer mandatory is the period of the CPR 26.4 (1) stay. More often than not, it will be for one month (particularly, because automatic stays are currently dealt with through orders made by court staff under the recently extended pilot scheme for staff to make certain orders – see PD51B) but the court has discretion to stay for a longer or shorter period.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll