Vickerage v Cunningham [2018] EWCA Civ 1164 (17 May 2018)

Vickerage v Cunningham [2018] EWCA Civ 1164 (17 May 2018)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the appeal was brought long out of time without adequate explanation, the defendant was not a prosecutor in law and thus could not be liable for malicious prosecution, and there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused as irrelevant and out of time.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 1164
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: Linda Rosalie Vickerage; Defendant / Respondent: Tina Linda Cunningham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Renewal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused; applications to adduce further evidence and for disclosure refused.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Adducing Further Evidence
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Adducing Further Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Rosalie Vickerage

Claimant / Applicant

Tina Linda Cunningham

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Renewal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was a prosecutor for the purposes of malicious prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact by the trial judge can be interfered with on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the appeal was brought long out of time without adequate explanation, the defendant was not a prosecutor in law and thus could not be liable for malicious prosecution, and there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused as irrelevant and out of time.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused; applications to adduce further evidence and for disclosure refused.