Josephine Hayes v Dr Mark Pack & Ors

Josephine Hayes v Dr Mark Pack & Ors

Permission to appeal is refused on all grounds because the claim is a private law dispute about the applicant's expulsion, not a vehicle for wider governance or representative issues. The Master and Judge correctly limited the scope of the claim, refused amendments and representation orders, and there is no real prospect of success on any ground. No compelling reason for appeal exists.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Josephine Hayes; Respondent/defendant: Dr Mark Pack; Respondent/defendant: Duncan Curley; Respondent/defendant: Alexandra Simpson; Respondent/defendant: Serena Tierney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (permission to Appeal Applications) / Renewal of Permission to Appeal After Refusal on the Papers
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all grounds; application to adjourn trial dismissed.
Legal Topics
Expulsion From Unincorporated Association, Breach of Contract, Representative Actions, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Adjournment Applications
Contract Law Civil Procedure Association Law Expulsion From Unincorporated Association Breach of Contract Representative Actions Amendment of Pleadings Costs +1 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Hayes

Applicant/claimant

Dr Mark Pack

Respondent/defendant

Duncan Curley

Respondent/defendant

Alexandra Simpson

Respondent/defendant

Serena Tierney

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (permission to Appeal Applications) / Renewal of Permission to Appeal After Refusal on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on grounds relating to the scope of the claim, incorporation of terms into the association contract, representation orders, and amendment of pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the Master and Judge erred in refusing to expand the claim to wider governance issues or to allow representative proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused on all grounds because the claim is a private law dispute about the applicant's expulsion, not a vehicle for wider governance or representative issues. The Master and Judge correctly limited the scope of the claim, refused amendments and representation orders, and there is no real prospect of success on any ground. No compelling reason for appeal exists.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all grounds; application to adjourn trial dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal Judgment 1 (Appeal 1: KA-2024-000104) refused on all seven grounds.
  • Permission to appeal Judgment 2 (Appeal 2: KA-2024-000152) refused on all seven grounds.