N W P Woodward v Inland Revenue [2002] EWCA Civ 123 (31 January 2002)

N W P Woodward v Inland Revenue [2002] EWCA Civ 123 (31 January 2002)

The claimant failed to provide sufficient grounds for an extension of time to appeal, and there was no unfairness or breach of Article 6 in the conduct of the trial. The trial judge was entitled to proceed, and the refusal to allow unofficial recording was in accordance with established practice. The underlying claim was found to be baseless and unsupported by evidence.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 123
Parties
Claimant/applicant: N W P Woodward; Defendant/respondent: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Chancery Division Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Negligence, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Extension of Time for Appeal, Right to Fair Trial, Human Rights Act Article 6
Civil Procedure Tort Insolvency Malicious Prosecution Negligence Bankruptcy Proceedings Extension of Time for Appeal Right to Fair Trial +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N W P Woodward

Claimant/applicant

Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Chancery Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment and proceeding with the trial in the absence of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was denied a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to allow unofficial recording of proceedings was unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide sufficient grounds for an extension of time to appeal, and there was no unfairness or breach of Article 6 in the conduct of the trial. The trial judge was entitled to proceed, and the refusal to allow unofficial recording was in accordance with established practice. The underlying claim was found to be baseless and unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused