JO1 v Garret & Anor
The application for permission to appeal was refused because the pleadings failed to address the essential elements of the alleged torts, the allegations were speculative, causation was not properly pleaded, and the claim in malicious falsehood was statute barred. There was no real prospect of success in any appeal.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: JO1; First Defendant/respondent: Christopher Garret; Second Defendant/respondent: Oxfordshire County Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Misfeasance in Public Office, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Malicious Falsehood, Summary Judgment, Causation, Limitation of Actions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
JO1
Claimant/appellant
Christopher Garret
First Defendant/respondent
Oxfordshire County Council
Second Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in misfeasance in public office, deceit, or malicious falsehood
- 2 Whether the claim is statute barred
- 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
The application for permission to appeal was refused because the pleadings failed to address the essential elements of the alleged torts, the allegations were speculative, causation was not properly pleaded, and the claim in malicious falsehood was statute barred. There was no real prospect of success in any appeal.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal is refused
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