header-logo header-logo

29 November 2013
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

The dreaded strike out

The notice of proposed allocation to track requires payment of the allocation fee...

The notice of proposed allocation to track requires payment of the allocation fee by a specified date and goes on to state: “Following further notice, if the allocation fee is not paid by the due date, the claim will be automatically struck out.” What does this mean? Must the court send out another notice before the strike out occurs and, if so, what is this notice?

The procedure is governed by CPR r 3.7. There are two stages. By its notice of allocation the court requires payment of the fee by a specific date. If the fee is still outstanding at that date the court will send out a further notice which will demand payment by a later date and warn of the consequence of non-compliance, namely that the claim (or counterclaim as the case may be) will stand automatically struck out. This is the “further notice” mentioned in the question. The only salvation for the defaulting party would then be to

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll