The discretion to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution under Part 18 rule 3(1) of the District Court Rules is not constrained by the restrictive English tests from Birkett v James requiring intentional and contumelious default or inordinate and inexcusable delay. The discretion is unfettered and requires a balance of all relevant circumstances, as stated in Stollznow v Calvert. Repeated breach of court orders to file particulars, without sworn explanation, may justify dismissal even where the plaintiff eventually complies shortly before the hearing. A plaintiff who fails to tender evidence explaining non-compliance cannot complain that the primary judge failed to take into account the plaintiff's personal blamelessness.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 165 later cases that cite this judgment.
44 of the 165 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.