Healy v Corporation of Lloyds [2004] EWCA Civ 262 (24 February 2004)

Healy v Corporation of Lloyds [2004] EWCA Civ 262 (24 February 2004)

There was no procedural defect in the conduct of the trial by the judge. The refusal to adjourn or admit late evidence was a proper exercise of discretion, and the claimant's lack of legal representation was not attributable to any error by the judge. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 262
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Pauline Healy; Defendant/respondent: Corporation of Lloyds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (mercantile Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Permanent Health Insurance, Damages Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Adjournment, Admission of Late Evidence, Litigant in Person, Expert Evidence
Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Permanent Health Insurance Damages Assessment Procedural Fairness Adjournment +3 more

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

Parties

Pauline Healy

Claimant/appellant

Corporation of Lloyds

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (mercantile Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment to allow the claimant to obtain updated medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit late medical evidence at the hand-down of judgment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered procedural unfairness due to lack of legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural defect in the conduct of the trial by the judge. The refusal to adjourn or admit late evidence was a proper exercise of discretion, and the claimant's lack of legal representation was not attributable to any error by the judge. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs up to 27 January 2004
  • No order as to costs thereafter