Fradkina & Ors v London Borough Of Barnet & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 2002 (14 December 2001)

Fradkina & Ors v London Borough Of Barnet & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 2002 (14 December 2001)

Permission to appeal was refused in all three claims because (1) there was no proof of service for default judgment in the medical negligence claim; (2) the procedural requirements for progressing the human rights claim had not been met, but the action could continue if the applicant completed the necessary forms; (3) the housing authority had fulfilled its legal obligations, the care order remedies were exhausted, and the complaints about contact were without merit.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 2002
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Raisa Fradkina; Claimant/appellant: Yefim Fradkin; Claimant/appellant: Vladlen Karpenko; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Barnet & Ors; Defendant/respondent: University College Hospital Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Tier Appeal)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Notice, Human Rights Breaches, Care Orders, Housing Obligations, Negligence in Medical Treatment
Civil Procedure Human Rights Housing Law Family Law Medical Negligence Default Judgment Service of Notice Human Rights Breaches +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raisa Fradkina

Claimant/appellant

Yefim Fradkin

Claimant/appellant

Vladlen Karpenko

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Barnet & Ors

Defendant/respondent

University College Hospital Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Tier Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted in three consolidated claims: (1) alleged medical negligence; (2) alleged human rights breaches during search and arrest; (3) alleged failure to provide adequate housing and challenge to care order

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused in all three claims because (1) there was no proof of service for default judgment in the medical negligence claim; (2) the procedural requirements for progressing the human rights claim had not been met, but the action could continue if the applicant completed the necessary forms; (3) the housing authority had fulfilled its legal obligations, the care order remedies were exhausted, and the complaints about contact were without merit.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications refused
  • Transcript of judgment to be provided at public expense