Matthews v Carlisle [2001] EWCA Civ 937 (24 May 2001)

Matthews v Carlisle [2001] EWCA Civ 937 (24 May 2001)

There was no arguable ground for appeal as the applicant failed to provide material evidence of procedural impropriety or judicial bias, and the order for sale was made in accordance with the relevant rules and prior orders.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 937
Parties
Claimant/respondent: T A Matthews; Defendant/applicant: Edmund Paul Carlisle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Order for Sale, Recusal of Judge, Costs Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Charging Orders Order for Sale Recusal of Judge Costs Assessment Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

T A Matthews

Claimant/respondent

Edmund Paul Carlisle

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Judge Geddes should have recused himself due to prior involvement and alleged Freemasonry
  2. 2 Whether the order for sale was properly made under the charging order
  3. 3 Whether the costs and enforcement procedures were lawful and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable ground for appeal as the applicant failed to provide material evidence of procedural impropriety or judicial bias, and the order for sale was made in accordance with the relevant rules and prior orders.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Order not to be sealed until 12 June with liberty to the respondents to apply subject to 24 hours' notice to the applicant