Lloyd v North & Ors [2023] EWHC 1497 (KB) (21 June 2023)

Lloyd v North & Ors [2023] EWHC 1497 (KB) (21 June 2023)

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused because the claim was a clear abuse of process, seeking to relitigate issues already determined by courts of competent jurisdiction. The Master was entitled to strike out the claim under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and (b), and no error was identified in the Master's approach.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1497 (KB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Jean Lloyd; Respondent/defendant: His Honour Judge North; Respondent/defendant: Rt Hon Lord Justice Arnold; Respondent/defendant: Mrs Alison MacLennan; Respondent/defendant: Mr Ben Salmon; Respondent/defendant: Mr J Wilson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal / Oral Hearing Following Refusal on the Papers
Outcome
Renewed application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Striking Out Claims, Possession Proceedings, Appeals Process, Judicial Immunity
Civil Procedure Property Law Abuse of Process Striking Out Claims Possession Proceedings Appeals Process Judicial Immunity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Lloyd

Applicant/claimant

His Honour Judge North

Respondent/defendant

Rt Hon Lord Justice Arnold

Respondent/defendant

Mrs Alison MacLennan

Respondent/defendant

Mr Ben Salmon

Respondent/defendant

Mr J Wilson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal / Oral Hearing Following Refusal on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the renewed application for permission to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the claim was an abuse of process by seeking to relitigate matters already determined
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in striking out the claim under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and (b)

Ratio Decidendi

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused because the claim was a clear abuse of process, seeking to relitigate issues already determined by courts of competent jurisdiction. The Master was entitled to strike out the claim under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and (b), and no error was identified in the Master's approach.

Court Disposition

Renewed application for permission to appeal refused