header-logo header-logo

Judicial line: 29 April 2020

29 April 2020
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

Pockets to be emptied fast

Q CPR3.7A to 3.7AA deals with strike out for non-payment of a prescribed fee. They allow for reinstatement which is conditional on payment of the fee two days from the date of the court’s reinstatement order where the defaulting party was present or represented at the hearing. Does ‘two days from the date of the order’ mean two days from the hearing date, the date the order bears as typed by the court clerk, the date designated by the judge when formulating the order, the date the order was posted or the date the order was deemed served?

A It means two days from the date of the hearing, when the defaulting party was present or represented and so was aware of the outcome. The rule draws a distinction between that situation and the situation where there was no presence or representation. In the latter case, provision is made for time to run from the date of service of the reinstatement order.


Truth

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll