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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on the construction of clause 7.1
- 2 Whether the judge applied the correct test regarding amendment under Henderson v Henderson
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment