Momson v Azeez [2008] EWCA Civ 829 (05 June 2008)

Momson v Azeez [2008] EWCA Civ 829 (05 June 2008)

Permission to appeal is granted on the limited issues of whether the judge was clearly wrong in his assessment of fairness regarding disclosure and participation, whether Article 6 ECHR required a proportionality assessment, and whether the judge considered the case in the round as required by the overriding objective.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 829
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Momson; Appellant/defendant: Azeez
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) From High Court and County Court Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal the order of Briggs J granted; application to appeal the order of HHJ Marshall adjourned
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure Obligations, Constructive Trusts, Article 6 ECHR, Proportionality, Debarring Orders
Civil Procedure Trusts Relief From Sanctions Disclosure Obligations Constructive Trusts Article 6 ECHR Proportionality Debarring Orders

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Momson

Respondent/claimant

Azeez

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) From High Court and County Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was clearly wrong in holding that permitting the defendant to defend and give oral evidence without proper disclosure would be unfair to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether Article 6 ECHR required the judge to consider proportionality of the debarring order
  3. 3 Whether the judge was required to consider the case in the round and if so, whether he did so

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on the limited issues of whether the judge was clearly wrong in his assessment of fairness regarding disclosure and participation, whether Article 6 ECHR required a proportionality assessment, and whether the judge considered the case in the round as required by the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal the order of Briggs J granted; application to appeal the order of HHJ Marshall adjourned

Orders

  • Appellant to file a skeleton argument on identified issues within 21 days
  • Appellant to file separate skeleton argument and grounds of appeal regarding the order of HHJ Marshall of 30 January 2007