Till v Nominal Defendant

The case involved a plaintiff, Till, against a nominal defendant, where the proceedings had been ongoing for over 14 years. The dispute centred around whether the balance of factors justified striking out the proceedings due to significant delays attributed largely to the plaintiff's conduct and attitude. Additionally, the plaintiff was impecunious and acting pro se.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's conduct and attitude, coupled with the significant delay and his financial incapacity, warranted the striking out of the proceedings. The court had to consider the public interest in the final resolution of disputes, the degree of fault attributable to the plaintiff, and the extent of prejudice to the defendant if the proceedings were allowed to continue.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's conduct and attitude had considerably contributed to the delay and that he was impecunious and acting without legal representation. These factors, along with the significant length of time the proceedings had been pending, led the court to determine that the balance of factors favoured striking out the proceedings. The plaintiff's impecunious status and solitary representation did not weigh in his favour, given the extensive delay attributable to him. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a genuine attempt to expedite the proceedings.

The court ordered that the proceedings be struck out and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs and the costs of the application.