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

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll