Crutchley v Kruger & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 427 (09 March 2016)

Crutchley v Kruger & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 427 (09 March 2016)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, raised no point of principle or practice, and there was no compelling reason to grant permission. The orders for disclosure and costs were ordinary and justified in the circumstances, and the Claimant's arguments did not demonstrate any error in the exercise of judicial discretion.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 427
Parties
Claimant: Crutchley; Defendants: Kruger and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Bring a Second Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Costs Orders, Striking Out Actions, Second Appeals
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Disclosure of Documents Costs Orders Striking Out Actions Second Appeals

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

Parties

Crutchley

Claimant

Kruger and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Bring a Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order and striking out of the action were appropriate given the disclosure history and conduct of the parties
  2. 2 Whether the misleading of the court by the Defendants' counsel affected the fairness of the costs order
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant, as a litigant in person, was given sufficient opportunity to argue costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, raised no point of principle or practice, and there was no compelling reason to grant permission. The orders for disclosure and costs were ordinary and justified in the circumstances, and the Claimant's arguments did not demonstrate any error in the exercise of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused