or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court grants a stay of proceedings in which the plaintiff in the present proceedings seeks a declaration that it is entitled to an indemnity from the defendant against claims made against it in separate proceedings pending the determination of the other proceedings, on the grounds that: (a) if the matters are not linked and the other proceedings go ahead, it is very likely that, whoever is successful, relatively net issues will remain to be decided as between the plaintiff and defendant in these proceedings; (b) there would be no significant prejudice to the plaintiff if the issue of liability in the present proceedings awaits the outcome of the other proceedings; and (c) granting a stay was necessary and proportionate to achieve the end of preventing unnecessary expense or use of court time.
Application for a stay of proceedings in which the plaintiff in the present proceedings seeks a declaration that it is entitled to an indemnity pursuant to s.27 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 from the defendant against claims made against it in separate proceedings pending the determination of the other proceedings - the defendant sought the stay pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court - practice and procedure - the plaintiff is a provider of telecommunications services - the defendant provides call centre personnel services - the other proceedings relate to a claim against the plaintiff in these proceedings in which the plaintiff in those proceedings had a mobile phone contract with them - the plaintiff in those proceedings alleges that an employee of the defendant company in the within proceedings disclosed confidential information in the form of telephone records to his father in law which led to him being subjected to a sustained and relentless campaign of harassment, threats, intimidation and abuse conducted by his in laws - the other proceedings issued on 29 May 2013 - the within proceedings issued on 11 January 2018 - no defence was delivered in the within proceedings - the plaintiff in these proceedings sought to have both proceedings heard together - the defendant objected arguing that a third party notice had not been served in relation to the other proceedings and that there was a significant delay in instituting the within proceedings - whether to stay the proceedings pending the determination of proceedings - whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the stay - stay granted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.