Maile & Anor v Hopwood [2002] EWCA Civ 1798 (22 November 2002)

Maile & Anor v Hopwood [2002] EWCA Civ 1798 (22 November 2002)

There was no important point of principle or practice, nor any other compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal. The district judge correctly applied the burden of proof, made findings of fact within the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion, and there was no procedural irregularity or admissible new evidence that would justify a further appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1798
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Linda Dorothy Maile; Claimant/applicant: Christopher Maile; Defendant/respondent: Gary Hopwood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Small Claims Procedure, Appeals, Admissibility of Evidence, Counterclaims
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Burden of Proof Small Claims Procedure Appeals Admissibility of Evidence Counterclaims

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Dorothy Maile

Claimant/applicant

Christopher Maile

Claimant/applicant

Gary Hopwood

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge misapplied the burden of proof on claim and counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether findings of fact by the district judge were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities occurred regarding cross-examination and admissibility of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There was no important point of principle or practice, nor any other compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal. The district judge correctly applied the burden of proof, made findings of fact within the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion, and there was no procedural irregularity or admissible new evidence that would justify a further appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal and stay of execution refused