Tweet
If you have / are considering entering the templated strike out defences posted on CAG and PenaltyCharges you will need to argue the case law you have quoted in your strike out defence. Because we are now seeing a number of people looking for help with these have tried to find what I can so can we use this thread to discuss the relevance of each and check references etc to help everyone in that position.
LB do not recommend anyone enters a templated response to any strike out request / summary judgment application - every case is individual and unique and needs to be worded yourself with assistance using your personal circumstances, and we really arent the best people to help you with cases started on CAG / PCF, but will help wherever we can.
Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/24.html
Relevance: shouldnt be struck out if a developing area of law
Powell v Boladz LTL 22/9/03
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2003/2160.html
Woodhouse v Consignia plc [2002] 1 WLR 2558
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/275.html
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Halifax (SW) Ltd [1999] CPLR 691, CA)
UCB Corporate Services Limited (Formerly UCB Bank Plc) v Halifax (SW) Limited
One passage which the Court of Appeal cited with approval came from
UCB Corporate Services 
Ltd –v- Halifax SW Ltd (Unreported) 6 December 1999 CA, where Lord Lloyd said:
Three Rivers District Council & Ors v Bank Of England [1997] EWCA Civ 2379 (2 October 1997)
W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368
In so far as it was argued that striking out was not appropriate in the circumstances, whilst the court would ordinarily be wary of such an application where there would be needed long and serious argument, such a course could be taken where the court was satisfied that striking out would be beneficial in terms of saving time and/or reducing the burdens of the trial by reducing the issues in contention
Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi (ECJ Case C-243/08)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...8J0243:EN:HTML
LB do not recommend anyone enters a templated response to any strike out request / summary judgment application - every case is individual and unique and needs to be worded yourself with assistance using your personal circumstances, and we really arent the best people to help you with cases started on CAG / PCF, but will help wherever we can.
Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/24.html
Relevance: shouldnt be struck out if a developing area of law
Powell v Boladz LTL 22/9/03
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2003/2160.html
Woodhouse v Consignia plc [2002] 1 WLR 2558
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/275.html
UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Halifax (SW) Ltd [1999] CPLR 691, CA)
UCB Corporate Services Limited (Formerly UCB Bank Plc) v Halifax (SW) Limited
One passage which the Court of Appeal cited with approval came from
UCB Corporate Services Ltd –v- Halifax SW Ltd (Unreported) 6 December 1999 CA, where Lord Lloyd said: "It would indeed be ironic if as a result of the new rules coming into force, and the judgment of this court in the Biguzzi case, judges were required to treat cases of delay with greater leniency than they would have done under the old procedure. I feel sure that cannot have been the intention of the Master of the Rolls in giving judgment in the Biguzzi case. What he was concerned to point out was that there are now additional powers which the court may and should use in the less serious cases. But in the more serious cases, striking out remains the appropriate remedy where that it is what justice requires."
Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No) 3 [2003] AC 1 a t [96]-[97].Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
Three Rivers District Council & Ors v Bank Of England [1997] EWCA Civ 2379 (2 October 1997)
W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368
In so far as it was argued that striking out was not appropriate in the circumstances, whilst the court would ordinarily be wary of such an application where there would be needed long and serious argument, such a course could be taken where the court was satisfied that striking out would be beneficial in terms of saving time and/or reducing the burdens of the trial by reducing the issues in contention
Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi (ECJ Case C-243/08)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...8J0243:EN:HTML
