Bank of Scotland Plc v Copeland [2015] EWHC 921 (QB) (31 March 2015)
Permission to appeal is granted because the substantive issue of whether the Bank is still owed the claimed sum, in light of alleged repayments and the Bank's knowledge of fraud, requires examination on the merits. Justice will be furthered by allowing the appeal to proceed.
- Citation
- [2015] EWHC 921 (QB)
- Parties
- Claimant/proposed Respondent: Bank of Scotland Plc; Defendant/proposed Appellant: Rosemary Copeland
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (permission to Appeal) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Mortgage Possession, Limitation Period, Fraud Allegations, Strike Out of Defence, Counterclaim, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bank of Scotland Plc
Claimant/proposed Respondent
Rosemary Copeland
Defendant/proposed Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (permission to Appeal) / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the decisions of HH Judge Maloney QC on 2 May 2014
- 2 Whether the limitation period bars Ms Copeland's counterclaim alleging fraud
- 3 Whether the Bank is still owed the claimed sum given the alleged repayments and transactions
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal is granted because the substantive issue of whether the Bank is still owed the claimed sum, in light of alleged repayments and the Bank's knowledge of fraud, requires examination on the merits. Justice will be furthered by allowing the appeal to proceed.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal granted
Orders
- Appeal to be listed for one day
- Bank to prepare hearing bundle if Ms Copeland is unrepresented
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