Law v Raleys Solicitors [2016] EWCA Civ 642 (19 April 2016)

Law v Raleys Solicitors [2016] EWCA Civ 642 (19 April 2016)

The application fails because the issues raised are fact-specific and do not involve an important point of principle or practice; the District Judge's decision was within his discretion and accorded with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 642
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Jeffrey Law; Defendant/respondent: Raleys Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Bring a Second Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Sanctions for Breach of Rules, Surveillance Evidence, Second Appeals
Civil Procedure Disclosure of Evidence Sanctions for Breach of Rules Surveillance Evidence 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Law

Claimant/applicant

Raleys Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Bring a Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in permitting defendants to rely on evidence not disclosed prior to service of witness statements
  2. 2 Whether deliberate withholding of evidence should result in exclusion as a sanction
  3. 3 Whether the case raises an important point of principle or practice for a second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because the issues raised are fact-specific and do not involve an important point of principle or practice; the District Judge's decision was within his discretion and accorded with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal is dismissed