Great Future International Ltd & Ors v Sealand Housing Corporation & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 731 (9 May 2002)

Great Future International Ltd & Ors v Sealand Housing Corporation & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 731 (9 May 2002)

There is no real prospect of success on appeal against the trial judge's refusal to adjourn, exclusion of evidence, or findings of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. The judge's findings were supported by contemporaneous documents and credible evidence. The applications for permission to appeal are out of time and no sufficient grounds have been shown to extend time or to disturb the judge's exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 731
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Great Future International Limited; Claimant/respondent: Wardley China Investment Trust; Claimant/respondent: Asia Pacific Growth Fund II LP; Claimant/respondent: China Pacific Growth Fund II LP; Claimant/respondent: Firstee Investments Limited; Defendant/applicant: Sealand Housing Corporation; Defendant/applicant: Barry Hansen; Defendant/applicant: Stuart Hansen; Defendant/applicant: Drewson Capital Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Exclusion of Evidence, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Novation, Estoppel, Appeal Out of Time
Civil Procedure Contract Law Fraud Adjournment of Trial Exclusion of Evidence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty Novation +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Future International Limited

Claimant/respondent

Wardley China Investment Trust

Claimant/respondent

Asia Pacific Growth Fund II LP

Claimant/respondent

China Pacific Growth Fund II LP

Claimant/respondent

Firstee Investments Limited

Claimant/respondent

Sealand Housing Corporation

Defendant/applicant

Barry Hansen

Defendant/applicant

Stuart Hansen

Defendant/applicant

Drewson Capital Corporation Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment of the trial
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of late evidence was wrongful
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in findings of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real prospect of success on appeal against the trial judge's refusal to adjourn, exclusion of evidence, or findings of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. The judge's findings were supported by contemporaneous documents and credible evidence. The applications for permission to appeal are out of time and no sufficient grounds have been shown to extend time or to disturb the judge's exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Order to lie in the office for 7 days for possible further submissions by applicants