Bright v Bright [2001] EWCA Civ 1581 (12 October 2001)

Bright v Bright [2001] EWCA Civ 1581 (12 October 2001)

The application was refused as the alleged errors did not reach the threshold of significance or proportionality required for a second appeal on costs, and any error could have been corrected at trial by counsel.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1581
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Tanya Bright; Defendant/respondent: Marcus William Bright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Order)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Appeals, Costs, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Judicial Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanya Bright

Claimant/applicant

Marcus William Bright

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal a costs order should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion as to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused as the alleged errors did not reach the threshold of significance or proportionality required for a second appeal on costs, and any error could have been corrected at trial by counsel.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused