Brown & Anor v Bennett & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1352 (27 July 2001)

Brown & Anor v Bennett & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1352 (27 July 2001)

The claimants' case was bound to fail as they did not establish their pleaded allegations on the evidence; the judge was entitled to dismiss the claim at the close of the claimants' case; refusal to adjourn, refusal to allow amendment, and alleged bias were all within the judge's discretion and properly exercised; there was no breach of natural justice or denial of a fair trial.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1352
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Graham Brown; Claimant/applicant: Edwina Brown; Defendant/respondent: Maurice Bennett; Defendant/respondent: Michael Bennett; Defendant/respondent: Cyril Winston Freedman; Defendant/respondent: Vivian John Walter Scott; Defendant/respondent: Peter Anthony Richard Evans; Defendant/respondent: Stephen Kane; Defendant/respondent: David Peter Sarson; Defendant/respondent: Apax Partners and Co Ventures Limited; Defendant/respondent: Apax Ventures III; Defendant/respondent: APA Ventures III International Partners SP; Defendant/respondent: Graham Brown (Oasis Trading) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Seagerlynn Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Negligence, Strike Out/no Case to Answer, Adjournment, Bias, Amendment of Pleadings, Legal Aid, Human Rights
Company Law Civil Procedure Directors' Duties Fiduciary Duty Conspiracy Negligence Strike Out/no Case to Answer Adjournment +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Brown

Claimant/applicant

Edwina Brown

Claimant/applicant

Maurice Bennett

Defendant/respondent

Michael Bennett

Defendant/respondent

Cyril Winston Freedman

Defendant/respondent

Vivian John Walter Scott

Defendant/respondent

Peter Anthony Richard Evans

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Kane

Defendant/respondent

David Peter Sarson

Defendant/respondent

Apax Partners and Co Ventures Limited

Defendant/respondent

Apax Ventures III

Defendant/respondent

APA Ventures III International Partners SP

Defendant/respondent

Graham Brown (Oasis Trading) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Seagerlynn Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in dismissing the claim at the close of the claimants' case for having no reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether refusal to adjourn for lack of legal aid was unfair
  3. 3 Whether failure to allow amendment to pleadings was wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' case was bound to fail as they did not establish their pleaded allegations on the evidence; the judge was entitled to dismiss the claim at the close of the claimants' case; refusal to adjourn, refusal to allow amendment, and alleged bias were all within the judge's discretion and properly exercised; there was no breach of natural justice or denial of a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Copy of judgment to be provided to applicants