Parker v Hutchings

Parker v Hutchings

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal after a lower appeal court has refused to re-open a matter under the Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction. There was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify a second appeal regarding the allocation to the multi-track or alleged miscarriage of justice. The Grepe v Loam order was properly made and there was no basis to permit an appeal from it.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Andrew Parker; Defendant/appellant: Graham Hutchings
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Review of Lower Court Orders
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Boundary Disputes, Case Management, Grepe V Loam Orders, Taylor V Lawrence Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Property Law Appeals Boundary Disputes Case Management Grepe V Loam Orders Taylor V Lawrence Jurisdiction

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Parker

Claimant/respondent

Graham Hutchings

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal; Review of Lower Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal after refusal to re-open by a lower appeal court under Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason to allow a second appeal regarding the allocation to the multi-track and alleged miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the Grepe v Loam order was properly made and should be subject to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal after a lower appeal court has refused to re-open a matter under the Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction. There was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify a second appeal regarding the allocation to the multi-track or alleged miscarriage of justice. The Grepe v Loam order was properly made and there was no basis to permit an appeal from it.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs