Brown & Anor v Fenwick [2001] EWCA Civ 1481 (4 October 2001)

Brown & Anor v Fenwick [2001] EWCA Civ 1481 (4 October 2001)

The judge at first instance properly exercised his discretion by systematically considering the relevant CPR 3.9 factors, including the overriding objective and the serious consequences for the claimants. There was no failure to consider proportionality or alternative sanctions. The appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor was there any compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1481
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Alan Goundril Brown; Claimant/appellant: Jean Margaret Brown; Defendant/respondent: Graham Fenwick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Case Management, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr), Proportionality, Discretionary Powers of the Court
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Case Management Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Proportionality Discretionary Powers of the Court

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Goundril Brown

Claimant/appellant

Jean Margaret Brown

Claimant/appellant

Graham Fenwick

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for a second appeal against refusal to extend time for serving particulars of loss
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider proportionality and alternative sanctions under the CPR

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance properly exercised his discretion by systematically considering the relevant CPR 3.9 factors, including the overriding objective and the serious consequences for the claimants. There was no failure to consider proportionality or alternative sanctions. The appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor was there any compelling reason to grant permission for a second appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Costs to be paid in the sum of £5,485.06, not to be enforced without the permission of the district judge