Kamara v Builder Depot Ltd

Kamara v Builder Depot Ltd

The application for relief from sanction and permission to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The trial judge's findings of fundamental dishonesty were amply supported by the evidence, and the procedural failures by the claimant's solicitors did not justify further indulgence. The fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility criteria, and there was no arguable error of law or fact in the trial judgment.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mohamed Issa Kamara; Defendant/respondent: Builder Depot Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Relief From Sanction and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; permission to appeal remains struck out.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanction, Permission to Appeal, Fundamental Dishonesty, Costs, Practice Directions, Extension of Time
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Relief From Sanction Permission to Appeal Fundamental Dishonesty Costs Practice Directions +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Issa Kamara

Claimant/appellant

Builder Depot Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Relief From Sanction and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanction should be granted for failure to comply with court orders regarding filing the appeal bundle
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the trial judge's dismissal of the claim for fundamental dishonesty under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for relief from sanction and permission to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The trial judge's findings of fundamental dishonesty were amply supported by the evidence, and the procedural failures by the claimant's solicitors did not justify further indulgence. The fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility criteria, and there was no arguable error of law or fact in the trial judgment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; permission to appeal remains struck out.

Orders

  • Application for relief from sanction is dismissed.
  • Application for permission to appeal remains struck out.