Patel v singh [2002] EWCA Civ 1938 (13 December 2002)

Patel v singh [2002] EWCA Civ 1938 (13 December 2002)

The claimant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking permission to enforce the judgment; the witness statement was insufficient; the lapse of six years ordinarily justifies refusal unless circumstances take the case out of the ordinary, which was not demonstrated here.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1938
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dipika Patel; Defendant/applicant: Sarbjit Singh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Queen's Bench Division / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of judge set aside; Master's order restored.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Judgments, Limitation Periods, Discretion to Permit Execution
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Limitation Periods Discretion to Permit Execution

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

Parties

Dipika Patel

Claimant/respondent

Sarbjit Singh

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Queen's Bench Division / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to issue a writ of execution more than six years after judgment
  2. 2 What circumstances justify exercise of discretion under Order 46 rule 2(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking permission to enforce the judgment; the witness statement was insufficient; the lapse of six years ordinarily justifies refusal unless circumstances take the case out of the ordinary, which was not demonstrated here.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of judge set aside; Master's order restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs