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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

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