Nelson v Greening & Sykes (Builders) Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 791 (20 May 2004)

Nelson v Greening & Sykes (Builders) Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 791 (20 May 2004)

The orders made by Mr Justice Peter Smith were not nullities; any procedural defects did not render them void. The proper procedural route was by appeal or application under the Charging Orders Act 1979 or Civil Procedure Rules, not by treating the orders as nullities. The applications for permission to appeal were therefore dismissed as bound to fail.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 791
Parties
Claimant/appellant: David Joseph Nelson; Interested Party/appellant: Shirene Hanley; Defendant/respondent: Greening & Sykes (Builders) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal Against High Court Orders; Substantive Appeal If Permission Granted
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Nullity of Court Orders, Specific Performance, Appeal Procedure, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Charging Orders Nullity of Court Orders Specific Performance Appeal Procedure Costs Orders

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Joseph Nelson

Claimant/appellant

Shirene Hanley

Interested Party/appellant

Greening & Sykes (Builders) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal Against High Court Orders; Substantive Appeal If Permission Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging orders made by Mr Justice Peter Smith were nullities
  2. 2 Whether the proper procedural route was to apply to set aside as nullities or to appeal or apply under statutory/civil procedure provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The orders made by Mr Justice Peter Smith were not nullities; any procedural defects did not render them void. The proper procedural route was by appeal or application under the Charging Orders Act 1979 or Civil Procedure Rules, not by treating the orders as nullities. The applications for permission to appeal were therefore dismissed as bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications dismissed
  • Costs assessed summarily at £1,864.00 payable by applicants