Greig Middleton & Co Ltd v Denderowicz (Olaleye-Oruene v London Guildhall University)

Under Order 17 Rule 11 of the County Court Rules, automatic directions are displaced only where the specified procedural conditions are met. A part admission does not engage the exception for an action to which Order 9 Rule 3(6) applies unless the claimant both receives the admission and notifies the proper officer that the amount is not accepted in satisfaction of the claim. An administrative court notice cannot create an arbitration reference where the proceedings do not qualify for automatic arbitration.

An extension of time to appeal after a change in the law remains discretionary. The court considers delay, its explanation, prospects of success, prejudice, reliance on finality, third-party effects and any second action. Reasonable reliance on the former law, a very strong appeal and prompt action may amount to special circumstances.

The two conjoined matters arose from County Court proceedings governed by Order 17 Rule 11 of the County Court Rules.

• In Greig Middleton & Co Ltd v Denderowicz, a stockbroker’s customer admitted part of the claim, later served a defence and challenged the conclusion that the action had not been automatically struck out. The issues were whether the part admission displaced the rule and whether an erroneous court notice effected a reference to arbitration.
• In Olaleye-Oruene v London Guildhall University, a race-discrimination claimant sought leave to appeal out of time after the action had been held automatically struck out. The central issue was whether the later clarification of the law justified extending time.

The court considered both the construction of the procedural exceptions and the principles governing extensions of time after an authoritative change in the law.

1. Greig Middleton appeal allowed. The part admission did not bring the action within the exception in Order 17 Rule 11(1)(o). Order 9 Rule 3(6) required both a part admission and notification to the proper officer that the admitted amount was not accepted. The plaintiffs had accepted the cheque as payment on account but had given no such notification. The proceedings therefore remained within the automatic-directions regime.
2. The alleged arbitration reference was ineffective. Under Order 19 Rule 2(3), the reference was automatic only where the stipulated financial condition was met. The words identifying the district judge identified the arbitrator, not the person who made the reference. The claim exceeded £1,000, so no automatic reference arose. The notice issued by the county court was an administrative error, not a judicial determination, and could not remove the action from Order 17 Rule 11 (paras [6.5]–[6.12]).
3. Extensions of time. The discretion is governed by the length of delay, reasons for delay, prospects of success and prejudice. A later change in the law does not automatically justify an extension. Special circumstances may arise where the applicant reasonably relied on the law as then understood, has a very strong appeal and acts promptly. The court must also consider third-party effects, reliance on finality, conduct of affairs on the basis that litigation has ended, pursuit of a second action and unexplained delay (paras [7.1]–[7.27]).
4. Olaleye-Oruene application dismissed. Although the later decision in Downer made the proposed point arguable, the claimant’s delay, particularly the unexplained period between the grant of limited legal aid and the application for leave, was inexcusable. The action was already stale, and the discretionary balance did not justify reopening it (paras [8.1]–[8.6]).

1. Court of Appeal: Allowed the appeal in Greig Middleton & Co Ltd v Denderowicz. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time in Olaleye-Oruene v London Guildhall University.
2. County Court: The judgment records decisions by Deputy District Judge Dodds, Judge Cartlidge, a district judge and Judge Quentin Edwards QC. No citations for those decisions are stated.