DEG-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgellschaft MBH v Koshy & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 489 (3 April 2001)

DEG-Deutsche Investitions Und Entwicklungsgellschaft MBH v Koshy & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 489 (3 April 2001)

Permission to appeal refused because the relevant regulations do not provide an appeal right for the assessment of disposable income, and no error of law or unreasonableness was established in the Commission's refusal to reconsider the assessment; regulation 14 does not apply absent acknowledgment of error by the assessment officer.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 489
Parties
Claimant/appellant: DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh; First Defendant/respondent; Claimant/applicant: Thomas Koshy; Second Defendant: Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited; Third Defendant: Warrant Trustees Limited (sued as Trustees of Palms Trust); Fourth Defendant: Haze Securities Limited; Fifth Defendant: Centel Limited; Sixth Defendant: Hi-Pro Holdings Limited; Seventh Defendant: Hi-Pro (UK) Limited; Eighth Defendant: Hi-Pro Aviation Limited; Interested Party; Respondent: Legal Services Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal; Determination of Form of Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Costs Orders, Judicial Review, Regulations Interpretation
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Legal Aid Costs Orders Judicial Review Regulations Interpretation

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh

Claimant/appellant

Thomas Koshy

First Defendant/respondent; Claimant/applicant

Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited

Second Defendant

Warrant Trustees Limited (sued as Trustees of Palms Trust)

Third Defendant

Haze Securities Limited

Fourth Defendant

Centel Limited

Fifth Defendant

Hi-Pro Holdings Limited

Sixth Defendant

Hi-Pro (UK) Limited

Seventh Defendant

Hi-Pro Aviation Limited

Eighth Defendant

Legal Services Commission

Interested Party; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal; Determination of Form of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against Turner J's refusal of judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Legal Services Commission erred in refusing to reconsider assessment of disposable income
  3. 3 Interpretation of Civil Legal Aid Regulations regarding appeals and assessments

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal refused because the relevant regulations do not provide an appeal right for the assessment of disposable income, and no error of law or unreasonableness was established in the Commission's refusal to reconsider the assessment; regulation 14 does not apply absent acknowledgment of error by the assessment officer.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Respondent's costs of permission application to be paid by applicant
  • Detailed assessment of costs