Trusthouse Forte California, Inc. v. Gateway Soap & Chemical Co.
T-213-94
Hargrave P.
17/12/98
7 pp.
Unreasonable delay of proceedings needlessly tying up Court's resources may result in dismissal of action-Otherwise resulting in stale proceedings not only bringing Court, case management process into disrespect, but also possibly prejudicing other litigants who wish to have litigation resolved expeditiously-Action commenced in February 1994-Nothing occurring in action since Fall, 1995-Plaintiffs looking to action not as vehicle by which to obtain prompt injunctive relief, but as leverage by which to prevent any further alleged breach of trade-mark from taking place-To so use judicial system as vantage ground for maintaining status quo, without clear, timely intent to reach conclusion in litigation, not only abuse of opponent, but also of judicial system-In Grovit v. Doctor, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 640 (H.L.), plaintiff using judicial system without any intention of moving litigation to conclusion-H.L. holding by reason of abuse of process, through delay and in absence of any real intention to press case on to trial, Motions Judge, Court of Appeal entitled to dismiss proceedings-Grovit v. Doctor taking approach wholesale disregard of time limits set out in rules of court by litigant should be considered from point of view of prejudice to particular litigants, and also in light of abuse and prejudice to due administration of justice-That abuse of court system, administration of justice ground to dismiss separate, apart from rule in Birkett v. James, [1978] A.C. 297 (H.L.), recognized by C.A. in Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd. v. Trafalgar Holdings Ltd., [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1426 (C.A.)-Latter tracing evolution of want of prosecution from Birkett v. James through to Grovit v. Doctor and then considers future in which civil procedure will be subject to court-controlled case management techniques-Focusing on unnecessary absorption of court's time with satellite litiga tion concerned with compliance with timetables set out in rules, Lord Woolf writing gradual change to managed system imposing additional burdens on courts, involving need for training, introduction of necessary technological infrastructure, therefore in interests of litigants as whole that court's time not unnecessarily absorbed in dealing with satellite litigation which noncompliance with timetables laid down in rules creating-In 1978 when Birkett v. James decided, consequence of taking up courts' time not consideration-But circumstances changing-Lord Woolf pointing out that in Birkett v. James consequence to other litigants and to courts of inordinate delay not consideration, but from now on going to be consideration of increasing significance-Change in culture already taking place will enable courts to recognize for future, more readily than heretofore, that wholesale disregard of rules abuse of process-Lord Woolf then commenting that warehousing of proceedings by party, until convenient to proceed, leading to stale proceedings, bringing case management, court into disrepute-As case flow management introduced, will involve courts becoming involved in order to find out why action not being processed-Finding out reasons for lack of activity in proceedings will unnecessarily consume court's time-If proceedings not intended to be pursued in accordance with rules, should not be brought-To unilaterally, without leave to use Court's facilities to warehouse actions, either to be pursued at time convenient to plaintiff or merely to hold them as leverage over defendant, in situation where plaintiff having no intention to proceed, ought not to be countenanced-Such proceeding abuse and should be struck out-Action dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs should they wish to bring action on any perceived new infringement of copyrights.