Hoath v Vooght & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1136 (12 July 2001)

Hoath v Vooght & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1136 (12 July 2001)

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the issues raised had already been considered by the Court of Appeal in 1995, should have been raised in 1991, and there was no compelling reason to revisit them now. The prospects for appeal were hopeless.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1136
Parties
Claimant/applicant: John Martin Edward Hoath; Defendant/respondent: Nigel John Vooght; Defendant/respondent: John Craig; Defendant/respondent: John Kay; Defendant/respondent: Mrs Krystyan Ann Hoath; Defendant/respondent: Cripps Harries Hall (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Tier)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Proceedings, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Solicitors' Bills, Permission to Appeal
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Proceedings Default Judgment Service of Process Solicitors' Bills Permission to Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Martin Edward Hoath

Claimant/applicant

Nigel John Vooght

Defendant/respondent

John Craig

Defendant/respondent

John Kay

Defendant/respondent

Mrs Krystyan Ann Hoath

Defendant/respondent

Cripps Harries Hall (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Tier)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission for a second appeal should be granted in bankruptcy proceedings
  2. 2 Whether default judgment was improperly obtained on interim solicitors' bills
  3. 3 Whether service of process was valid when effected by leaving documents at the property while the applicant was abroad

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the issues raised had already been considered by the Court of Appeal in 1995, should have been raised in 1991, and there was no compelling reason to revisit them now. The prospects for appeal were hopeless.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Appeal not reinstated