HC Deb 26 July 1963 vol 681 cc2022-4

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 34, at end insert: in relation to applications which are made after the commencement of a relevant action".

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)

I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It has been all along the intention that a plaintiff who intends to take advantage of the Bill by bringing an action which, save for the Bill, would have been Statute-barred by the effluxion of time shall have first to make an application to the court which is ex parte. That is what is intended in the Bill.

It was considered that in the very exceptional case where the issue of limitation arose in the course of a trial it would be absurd that there should have to be an adjournment for the filing of an affidavit and the making of an ex parte application. It is for that reason that Clause 2 was drafted to provide that the application shall be made ex parte, except in so far as the rules of court may otherwise provide. In another place concern was expressed that this gave too great a latitude and could provide for rules to be made that in all cases the application should be dealt with other than by an ex parte application. Their Lordships' Amendment tidies the matter up and makes it clear that the application shall always be exparte save when the issue of limitation arises in the course of the trial.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

We on this side welcome the Amendment. Our concern has always been that an intending plaintiff in applying for leave under Clause 1 should be as untrammelled as possible. I conceive that it was thought in another place that, under the wording of the Bill as it left this House, even before the issue of the writ, there might be the danger of an applicant being required to give notice to somebody or other as a result of rules to be made. It is a little difficult, perhaps, to know how far this was a well founded anxiety because surely it would be a very curious situation if notices were required to be given to intended defendants. However, it is quite true that the language of the Bill as it left this House was wide.

I understand that the Amendment makes it possible for rules to require applications to give notice when the application is made during a trial or at any time after the issue of the writ. I can see that there is good sense in that. When the defendant is identified and is a party to an action, it is probably best, if this matter than arises, that an application be made with notice so that all those concerned know what is going on. Those of us who regard this as an extremely useful and valuable Bill think that this Amendment is an improvement.

Question put and agreed to.