Walkinshaw & Ors v Diniz [2001] EWCA Civ 836 (25 May 2001)

Walkinshaw & Ors v Diniz [2001] EWCA Civ 836 (25 May 2001)

Permission to appeal is granted because there is a point on the construction of clause 7.1 that merits consideration, and the judge may have applied the wrong test regarding amendment. The 'letter point' should also be included in the appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 836
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Thomas Dobbie Thomson Walkinshaw; Claimant/applicant: TWR Group Limited; Claimant/applicant: Arrows Grand Prix International Limited; Defendant/respondent: Pedro Paulo Diniz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Permission to Appeal, Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Dobbie Thomson Walkinshaw

Claimant/applicant

TWR Group Limited

Claimant/applicant

Arrows Grand Prix International Limited

Claimant/applicant

Pedro Paulo Diniz

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on the construction of clause 7.1
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct test regarding amendment under Henderson v Henderson
  3. 3 Whether the 'letter point' should be included in the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted because there is a point on the construction of clause 7.1 that merits consideration, and the judge may have applied the wrong test regarding amendment. The 'letter point' should also be included in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal granted
  • Costs of today's application to be costs in the appeal