Zazulak (t/a Stefco Precision & General Engineers) v Dickenson & Anor (t/a Asset & Finance Leasing) & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 630 (27 April 2001)

Zazulak (t/a Stefco Precision & General Engineers) v Dickenson & Anor (t/a Asset & Finance Leasing) & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 630 (27 April 2001)

The judge at first instance made clear and reasoned findings on the evidence, rejecting the claimant's case regarding additional missing items and improper sale values, and crediting the claimant for items wrongfully removed. The appellate court found no real prospect of success on the points argued except for two issues requiring further enquiry: whether default justifying repossession was conceded at trial, and whether the judge failed to address the allegation of failure to realise proper value on sale of leased assets.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 630
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Stefan Zazulak (T/A Stefco Precision & General Engineers); Defendants/respondents: J G Dickenson and S L Dickenson (T/A Asset & Finance Leasing); Defendant/respondent: B & W Machinery Installations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Extension of Time) From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal adjourned for further enquiries on two issues, dismissed on all other grounds.
Legal Topics
Lease Agreements, Repossession, Mitigation of Loss, Damages, Extension of Time for Appeal, Evidentiary Assessment
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Lease Agreements Repossession Mitigation of Loss Damages Extension of Time for Appeal +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stefan Zazulak (T/A Stefco Precision & General Engineers)

Claimant/applicant

J G Dickenson and S L Dickenson (T/A Asset & Finance Leasing)

Defendants/respondents

B & W Machinery Installations Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Extension of Time) From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant defaulted under the leasing agreement justifying termination and repossession
  2. 2 Whether items not subject to the leasing agreement were unlawfully removed
  3. 3 Whether the first respondents failed to mitigate loss by selling leased items below market value

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance made clear and reasoned findings on the evidence, rejecting the claimant's case regarding additional missing items and improper sale values, and crediting the claimant for items wrongfully removed. The appellate court found no real prospect of success on the points argued except for two issues requiring further enquiry: whether default justifying repossession was conceded at trial, and whether the judge failed to address the allegation of failure to realise proper value on sale of leased assets.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal adjourned for further enquiries on two issues, dismissed on all other grounds.

Orders

  • Application adjourned for further enquiries regarding (1) whether default justifying termination and repossession was conceded at trial and (2) whether the judge failed to address the allegation of failure to realise proper value on sale of leased assets.
  • Application dismissed on all other aspects.