Regency Rolls Ltd & Anor v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379 (16 October 2000)

Regency Rolls Ltd & Anor v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379 (16 October 2000)

Mr Carnall failed to establish a reasonable prospect of success regarding his appointment as director and Mr Kemp's resignation; his case lacked credibility and was inconsistent with evidence. He also failed to act promptly in applying to set aside the judgment. The appeal was dismissed as all CPR 39.3(5) requirements were not met.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 379
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Regency Rolls Limited; Claimant/respondent: David Eric Kemp; Defendant/appellant: Murat Anthony Carnall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Post Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (substantive); Costs appeal allowed (costs order varied)
Legal Topics
Director Appointment, Resignation of Director, Setting Aside Judgment, Costs Orders
Company Law Civil Procedure Director Appointment Resignation of Director Setting Aside Judgment Costs 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regency Rolls Limited

Claimant/respondent

David Eric Kemp

Claimant/respondent

Murat Anthony Carnall

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Carnall was validly appointed as director
  2. 2 Whether Mr Kemp resigned as director
  3. 3 Whether the judgment should be set aside under CPR 39.3(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Carnall failed to establish a reasonable prospect of success regarding his appointment as director and Mr Kemp's resignation; his case lacked credibility and was inconsistent with evidence. He also failed to act promptly in applying to set aside the judgment. The appeal was dismissed as all CPR 39.3(5) requirements were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (substantive); Costs appeal allowed (costs order varied)

Orders

  • Substantive appeal dismissed with costs
  • Costs appeal allowed with costs, set off against costs incurred in substantive appeal