Quality Solicitors Harris Waters v Okonkwo [2020] EWHC 1168 (QB) (12 May 2020)

Quality Solicitors Harris Waters v Okonkwo [2020] EWHC 1168 (QB) (12 May 2020)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because there was no merit in any of the grounds advanced: there was no procedural irregularity, complaints about enforcement officers were not grounds to stay the writ of control, and the default judgment could not be challenged further as appeal rights were exhausted.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1168
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Quality Solicitors Harris Waters; Defendant/appellant: Diana Okonkwo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Writ of Control, Permission to Appeal, Procedural Irregularity

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quality Solicitors Harris Waters

Claimant/respondent

Diana Okonkwo

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has grounds to appeal the refusal to stay the writ of control
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious procedural irregularity in the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the writ of control should be stayed due to alleged fraud or deception

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because there was no merit in any of the grounds advanced: there was no procedural irregularity, complaints about enforcement officers were not grounds to stay the writ of control, and the default judgment could not be challenged further as appeal rights were exhausted.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal against paragraphs (1) and (2) of the order of HHJ Ambrose dated 19 November 2019 is refused.