Wemimo Mercy Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Limited & Ors

Wemimo Mercy Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Limited & Ors

None of the grounds for appeal were reasonably arguable; the judge applied correct legal principles, made findings justified by evidence, and properly exercised discretion under s.57 CJCA 2015. Vento damages for injury to feelings are caught by s.57 as personal injury. Civil Restraint Order is justified due to persistent meritless applications.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Wemimo Mercy Taiwo; Defendant/respondent: Homelets of Bath Limited; Additional Defendant: Emmanuel Diamond; Additional Defendant: Abayomi Bamidele Odebode
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal / Oral Renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; permission to amend grounds refused; application to adduce fresh evidence refused; application for permission to appeal Consequentials Order refused; Civil Restraint Order imposed.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Harassment, Appeal Permission, Civil Restraint Order, Non Party Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Harassment Appeal Permission Civil Restraint Order +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 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wemimo Mercy Taiwo

Claimant/applicant

Homelets of Bath Limited

Defendant/respondent

Emmanuel Diamond

Additional Defendant

Abayomi Bamidele Odebode

Additional Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Appeal / Oral Renewal of Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the Quantum Trial Order and Consequentials Order
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in findings of fundamental dishonesty under s.57 CJCA 2015
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness, reversal of burden of proof, or misapplication of legal principles occurred

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds for appeal were reasonably arguable; the judge applied correct legal principles, made findings justified by evidence, and properly exercised discretion under s.57 CJCA 2015. Vento damages for injury to feelings are caught by s.57 as personal injury. Civil Restraint Order is justified due to persistent meritless applications.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; permission to amend grounds refused; application to adduce fresh evidence refused; application for permission to appeal Consequentials Order refused; Civil Restraint Order imposed.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay 75% of Respondent's reasonable costs, assessed on standard basis if not agreed, with interim payment of £7,500.
  • Civil Restraint Order (limited) imposed against Applicant and Mr Diamond.