Bassi v Anas

Bassi v Anas

The application to reopen the refusal of permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the fresh evidence (handwriting expert report) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial or at the original appeal hearing. The circumstances were not exceptional, and there was an alternative remedy available by way of a separate action to set aside the order for fraud. There was no real injustice requiring the reopening of the appeal.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Saria Anas; Respondent/landlord: Sameer Bassi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Reopen Refusal of Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Reopening Final Determinations, Fraud Allegations, Adjournment Applications
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Fresh Evidence on Appeal Reopening Final Determinations Fraud Allegations Adjournment Applications

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saria Anas

Applicant/appellant

Sameer Bassi

Respondent/landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Reopen Refusal of Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to reopen the refusal of permission to appeal should be granted under CPR 52.17
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence (handwriting expert report) should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances are exceptional and justify reopening the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen the refusal of permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the fresh evidence (handwriting expert report) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial or at the original appeal hearing. The circumstances were not exceptional, and there was an alternative remedy available by way of a separate action to set aside the order for fraud. There was no real injustice requiring the reopening of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to reopen the order of 14 February 2007 is refused