header-logo header-logo

The dreaded strike out

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll