Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry v Goldberg & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 861 (30 May 2002)

Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry v Goldberg & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 861 (30 May 2002)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the points raised were case-management issues, not errors of principle, and did not meet the stringent test for a second appeal under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The Registrar and Vice-Chancellor exercised their discretion properly in refusing the requests for further information as premature or unnecessary.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 861
Parties
Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; 1st Defendant: Mark Goldberg; 2nd Defendant/applicant: James Flanagan McAvoy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (renewed Application for Permission to Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Directors' Disqualification, Case Management, Requests for Further Information, Civil Procedure Rules Part 18
Company Law Civil Procedure Directors' Disqualification Case Management Requests for Further Information Civil Procedure Rules Part 18

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Defendant/respondent

Mark Goldberg

1st Defendant

James Flanagan McAvoy

2nd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (renewed Application for Permission to Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor erred in refusing further information requests under CPR Part 18 as premature or unnecessary in directors' disqualification proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Vice-Chancellor made an error of principle in his approach to case management discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the points raised were case-management issues, not errors of principle, and did not meet the stringent test for a second appeal under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The Registrar and Vice-Chancellor exercised their discretion properly in refusing the requests for further information as premature or unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications refused