Huscroft v P & O Ferries Limited  EWCA Civ 1483
Matthew Boyle appeared for the Respondents in the Court of Appeal in this case relating to the ambit of CPR 3.1(3) – the rule entitling a Court to make an order subject to conditions, including payment of a sum of money into Court. The Court held that the power to attach conditions was intended to regulate the future conduct of litigation rather than punishing past failures. Moore-Bick LJ (with whom Sedley LJ and Elias LJ agreed) held that CPR 3.1(3) enabled the Court to grant specific relief on terms and that the condition in question (whether or not for payment of a sum of money into Court) should relate to the relief sought. Contrary to the suggestion in the earlier case of Halabi v Fieldmore Holdings the CPR 3.1(3) power was not only exercisable in cases of repeated failures to comply with Court orders or where there is a lack of good faith. However in any case the Court should identify the purpose of imposing the condition and satisfy itself that the condition represents a proportionate and effective means of achieving that purpose.