Barnes v Tilbrooks Solicitors & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 2049 (20 December 2001)

Barnes v Tilbrooks Solicitors & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 2049 (20 December 2001)

There was no real possibility of bias; the judge was not required to recuse himself. The Human Rights Act 1998 cannot be incompatible with rights it does not confer. Applications to reinstate permission to appeal were refused as there was no realistic prospect of success, and procedural rules regarding service of particulars of claim and committal for contempt were not met.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 2049
Parties
Claimant/applicant/defendant/applicant: Peter Michael Barnes; Defendant/respondent: Tilbrooks Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Sebastian Prentis; Claimant/respondent: Woolwich PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Applications to Reinstate Applications for Permission to Appeal After Dismissal
Outcome
All applications refused
Legal Topics
Recusal for Bias, Striking Out for Failure to Serve Particulars of Claim, Committal for Contempt, Declarations of Incompatibility Under Human Rights Act, Permission to Appeal, Practice Directions on Transcripts
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Human Rights Recusal for Bias Striking Out for Failure to Serve Particulars of Claim Committal for Contempt Declarations of Incompatibility Under Human Rights Act Permission to Appeal +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Michael Barnes

Claimant/applicant/defendant/applicant

Tilbrooks Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Sebastian Prentis

Defendant/respondent

Woolwich PLC

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Applications to Reinstate Applications for Permission to Appeal After Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself for actual or apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether omission of Article 13 ECHR from Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule is incompatible with the Act
  3. 3 Whether applications to reinstate permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real possibility of bias; the judge was not required to recuse himself. The Human Rights Act 1998 cannot be incompatible with rights it does not confer. Applications to reinstate permission to appeal were refused as there was no realistic prospect of success, and procedural rules regarding service of particulars of claim and committal for contempt were not met.

Court Disposition

All applications refused

Orders

  • Application for recusal refused
  • Application for declaration of incompatibility refused