Adshead v Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 823 (23 May 2002)
The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the court had jurisdiction to transfer proceedings, the orders made were valid, there was no arguable case for appeal, and no evidence of judicial bias or procedural impropriety.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 823
- Parties
- Claimant/applicant: Eva Christina Wright Adshead; Defendant/respondent: The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 May 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Applications for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Possession Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Transfer of Proceedings, Injunctions, Costs, Joinder of Parties
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eva Christina Wright Adshead
Claimant/applicant
The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear possession proceedings
- 2 Whether the transfer of proceedings between courts was valid
- 3 Whether the orders made by Ferris J should be set aside
Ratio Decidendi
The applications for permission to appeal were refused because the court had jurisdiction to transfer proceedings, the orders made were valid, there was no arguable case for appeal, and no evidence of judicial bias or procedural impropriety.
Court Disposition
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused on all grounds
- Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords 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