Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Ashford [2001] EWCA Civ 1578 (17 October 2001)

Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Ashford [2001] EWCA Civ 1578 (17 October 2001)

The judge below properly exercised discretion in refusing to entertain a late amendment to the grounds of appeal, as the issue was not raised in the notice of appeal, would have complicated proceedings, and there was no sufficient justification for the delay.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1578
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Cheltenham & Gloucester PLC; Defendant/appellant: Anthony George Ashford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Application)
Outcome
Permission to appeal on the additional ground refused.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Amendment of Grounds of Appeal, Costs Orders, Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Appeals Amendment of Grounds of Appeal Costs Orders Res Judicata

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheltenham & Gloucester PLC

Claimant/respondent

Anthony George Ashford

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be granted permission to appeal on an additional ground not previously raised
  2. 2 Whether the lower court judge erred in refusing to entertain a late amendment to the grounds of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below properly exercised discretion in refusing to entertain a late amendment to the grounds of appeal, as the issue was not raised in the notice of appeal, would have complicated proceedings, and there was no sufficient justification for the delay.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal on the additional ground refused.

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal on the additional ground is dismissed.
  • Appellant invited to proceed with the MIRAS point.