Chambers v Rooney & Anor [2017] EWHC 285 (QB) (28 January 2017)

Chambers v Rooney & Anor [2017] EWHC 285 (QB) (28 January 2017)

There was no arguable basis for the proposed appeal as the claims struck out were either legally or factually unsustainable, the defamation claims were time-barred with no sufficient grounds for extension, and no procedural unfairness or bias was established. Therefore, there was no practical value in granting an extension of time to appeal.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 285 (QB)
Parties
Claimant (appellant): Mrs Beverley Chambers; First Defendant (respondent): Mr Crispin Mark Rooney; Second Defendant (respondent): Ms Marianne Wiles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (civil) / Renewed Application for Extension of Time to Appeal, Post Judgment, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Striking Out of Claims, Summary Judgment, Limitation of Actions (defamation), Executor Duties, Costs, Litigants in Person
Civil Procedure Probate and Estates Defamation Extension of Time to Appeal Striking Out of Claims Summary Judgment Limitation of Actions (defamation) Executor Duties +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Beverley Chambers

Claimant (appellant)

Mr Crispin Mark Rooney

First Defendant (respondent)

Ms Marianne Wiles

Second Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (civil) / Renewed Application for Extension of Time to Appeal, Post Judgment, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the County Court order striking out parts of her claim and dismissing her applications
  2. 2 Whether the judge below erred in striking out certain heads and sub-heads of claim, including claims for defamation, punitive damages, and accounting issues
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period for defamation claims could be extended under s 32A Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable basis for the proposed appeal as the claims struck out were either legally or factually unsustainable, the defamation claims were time-barred with no sufficient grounds for extension, and no procedural unfairness or bias was established. Therefore, there was no practical value in granting an extension of time to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Refusal of extension of time to appeal.
  • No transfer to Chancery Division due to imminent trial.