Ward & Anor v Ward [2001] EWCA Civ 1737 (13 November 2001)
The trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the solicitor over the applicant and find that the applicant signed the compromise agreement, making it binding; there is no realistic prospect of a successful appeal against that factual finding.
- Citation
- [2001] EWCA Civ 1737
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Raymond Reginald Ward; Claimant/respondent: David Raymond Ward; Defendant/applicant: Anthony Ward
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Probate Proceedings / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Compromise of Proceedings, Authority of Solicitors, Binding Settlements, Contentious Probate, Appeals
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Raymond Reginald Ward
Claimant/respondent
David Raymond Ward
Claimant/respondent
Anthony Ward
Defendant/applicant
Procedural Posture
Probate Proceedings / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a binding compromise was reached between the parties in probate proceedings
- 2 Whether the applicant signed the compromise agreement
- 3 Whether the court should give effect to the compromise agreement under CPR 49 Practice Direction 12.2
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the solicitor over the applicant and find that the applicant signed the compromise agreement, making it binding; there is no realistic prospect of a successful appeal against that factual finding.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment