Petros & Ors v Chaudhari & Anor

Petros & Ors v Chaudhari & Anor

The applications for permission to appeal were dismissed because they were made out of time without proper explanation, sought to appeal from a consent order (which is not generally appealable), and there was no merit in challenging the directions given by the High Court judges. The proper course for the defendants, if dissatisfied with undertakings, was to apply to the High Court, not to appeal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Andranick Joseph Petros; Claimant/respondent: Quen Mok; Claimant/respondent: Christine Pierce; Claimant/respondent: Mark Peters; Claimant/respondent: Rupert Risdon; Claimant/respondent: Mark Kenny; Defendant/appellant: Sadhana Chaudhari; Defendant/appellant: Neelu Berry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal From High Court Orders
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Permission to Appeal, Consent Orders, Enforcement of Undertakings, Harassment, Defamation, Case Management
Civil Procedure Harassment Defamation Permission to Appeal Consent Orders Enforcement of Undertakings Case Management

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

Parties

Andranick Joseph Petros

Claimant/respondent

Quen Mok

Claimant/respondent

Christine Pierce

Claimant/respondent

Mark Peters

Claimant/respondent

Rupert Risdon

Claimant/respondent

Mark Kenny

Claimant/respondent

Sadhana Chaudhari

Defendant/appellant

Neelu Berry

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Applications for Permission to Appeal From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted from consent and directions orders
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' undertakings and enforcement proceedings were properly handled
  3. 3 Whether the applications for appeal were made out of time without proper explanation

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to appeal were dismissed because they were made out of time without proper explanation, sought to appeal from a consent order (which is not generally appealable), and there was no merit in challenging the directions given by the High Court judges. The proper course for the defendants, if dissatisfied with undertakings, was to apply to the High Court, not to appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications refused
  • No order for costs