Tibbs v London Borough Of Islington [2002] EWCA Civ 362 (8 March 2002)

Tibbs v London Borough Of Islington [2002] EWCA Civ 362 (8 March 2002)

If the new evidence is admitted, there is a real prospect that the malicious prosecution claim could be reinstated, as it may show the applicant owed less than the statutory minimum for bankruptcy.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 362
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Doreen Tibbs; Defendant/respondent: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Malicious Prosecution, Bankruptcy, Negligence, Malicious Falsehood
Civil Procedure Tort Law Misfeasance in Public Office Malicious Prosecution Bankruptcy Negligence Malicious Falsehood

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doreen Tibbs

Claimant/appellant

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for malicious prosecution should be reinstated based on new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the council acted without reasonable or proper cause in supporting the bankruptcy petition
  3. 3 Whether a supporting creditor can be said to prosecute bankruptcy proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

If the new evidence is admitted, there is a real prospect that the malicious prosecution claim could be reinstated, as it may show the applicant owed less than the statutory minimum for bankruptcy.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal granted
  • Application for permission to rely on further evidence adjourned to the full court