Wallace & Anor v Crossley & Anor

Wallace & Anor v Crossley & Anor

Permission to appeal was refused in all three applications because there was no real prospect of success, no error of law or principle by the lower court, and no important point of principle or practice was raised. The judge's discretion on costs and property occupation was properly exercised, and the defamation claim was properly struck out.

Parties
Respondents: Wallace & Anr; Appellants: Crossley & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal (adjourned Hearing)
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Permission to Appeal, Nuisance, Defamation, Civil Restraint Orders
Civil Procedure Nuisance Defamation Costs Permission to Appeal Civil Restraint 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wallace & Anr

Respondents

Crossley & Anr

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal (adjourned Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted in three applications relating to costs, property occupation, and defamation
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in the exercise of discretion on costs and interim payments
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking permission to appeal was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused in all three applications because there was no real prospect of success, no error of law or principle by the lower court, and no important point of principle or practice was raised. The judge's discretion on costs and property occupation was properly exercised, and the defamation claim was properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • All three applications for permission to appeal are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs for the 26 June hearing.