Kamara v Builder Depot Ltd [2020] EWHC 3046 (QB) (12 November 2020)

Kamara v Builder Depot Ltd [2020] EWHC 3046 (QB) (12 November 2020)

The application for relief from sanction and permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The trial judge's findings of fundamental dishonesty were amply supported by the evidence, and the procedural failings did not justify further indulgence. The fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility criteria, and there was no substantial injustice in dismissing the claim.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3046
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mohamed Issa Kamara; Defendant/respondent: Builder Depot Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2020
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal (civil) / Application for Relief From Sanction and Permission to Appeal After Strike Out
Outcome
Application dismissed; permission to appeal remains struck out.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Appeal Procedure, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury Damages, Contributory Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Fraud Relief From Sanctions Appeal Procedure Fundamental Dishonesty Personal Injury Damages Contributory Negligence

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

High Court Appeal (civil) / Application for Relief From Sanction and Permission to Appeal After Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanction should be granted for failure to comply with court orders regarding appeal bundle filing
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of the personal injury claim for fundamental dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The application for relief from sanction and permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The trial judge's findings of fundamental dishonesty were amply supported by the evidence, and the procedural failings did not justify further indulgence. The fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility criteria, and there was no substantial injustice in dismissing the claim.

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.