The Court dismissed proceedings for historical sexual abuse for want of due despatch under UCPR r 12.7(1) where the plaintiff had been out of contact with her solicitors for nearly six months, failed to attend four successive medical appointments arranged by the defendant, and there was no evidence the position would change. The Court refused a six-month stay, finding the request was arbitrary and not moored to any timetable, and that a 'wait-and-see' approach was inconsistent with case management principles. The Court held that the absence of a limitation period (Limitation Act 1969 s 6A) weighed in favour of dismissal rather than against it, as the plaintiff could recommence proceedings, and rejected the submission that dismissal would operate as a de facto permanent stay in the absence of evidence of the plaintiff's current financial incapacity.
The full text is available to signed-in members.