MYLES HANTLER v CLAIRE HIBBERT

MYLES HANTLER v CLAIRE HIBBERT

Permission to appeal on ground 2 (quantum of loss) is refused as it would amount to a re-hearing of factual findings, which is not the function of an appeal. Permission to appeal on ground 4 (compound interest) is granted as there is a real prospect the judge erred by awarding compound interest without a pleaded case or supporting evidence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Myles Hantler; Defendant/appellant: Claire Hibbert; Defendant/appellant: Stuart Hibbert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on ground 2; granted on ground 4.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Quantum of Loss, Interest on Judgments

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myles Hantler

Claimant/respondent

Claire Hibbert

Defendant/appellant

Stuart Hibbert

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge made an arithmetical error in computing quantum of loss
  2. 2 Whether the award of compound interest at 5% per annum was justified without a pleaded case or evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal on ground 2 (quantum of loss) is refused as it would amount to a re-hearing of factual findings, which is not the function of an appeal. Permission to appeal on ground 4 (compound interest) is granted as there is a real prospect the judge erred by awarding compound interest without a pleaded case or supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on ground 2; granted on ground 4.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on ground 2 refused.
  • Permission to appeal on ground 4 granted.