Noble v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

Noble v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

The appeal was refused because the costs order was correct, the adjournment was not the respondent's fault, and any grievance regarding solicitors' conduct should be pursued separately; there was no prospect of success in the appeal.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Rasaki Noble; Defendant/respondent: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Adjournment, Appeal Procedure, Legal Aid
Civil Procedure Costs Adjournment Appeal Procedure Legal Aid

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasaki Noble

Claimant/applicant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be liable for costs of adjournment due to his solicitors' conduct
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal the costs order should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the costs order was correct, the adjournment was not the respondent's fault, and any grievance regarding solicitors' conduct should be pursued separately; there was no prospect of success in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of adjournment, enforceable only by set-off against any damages awarded