Momson v Azeez

Momson v Azeez

The appeal was dismissed because the required disclosure was essential for a fair trial, Mr Azeez had consented to the disclosure and failed to comply without sufficient excuse, and the debarring order was a proportionate and justified sanction under both domestic rules and Article 6 ECHR. The judge properly considered all relevant factors and the overriding objective.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Folashade Rashida Momson; Appellant/defendant: Dauda Abiodun Azeez
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court and County Court Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused; stay lifted
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure Obligations, Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Interests in Property, Proportionality Under Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Property Law Relief From Sanctions Disclosure Obligations Constructive Trusts Beneficial Interests in Property Proportionality Under Article 6 ECHR

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Folashade Rashida Momson

Respondent/claimant

Dauda Abiodun Azeez

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court and County Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant relief from a debarring order was justified
  2. 2 Whether a fair trial was possible without the required disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the debarring order was proportionate under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the required disclosure was essential for a fair trial, Mr Azeez had consented to the disclosure and failed to comply without sufficient excuse, and the debarring order was a proportionate and justified sanction under both domestic rules and Article 6 ECHR. The judge properly considered all relevant factors and the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused; stay lifted

Orders

  • Appeal against Briggs J’s order of 7 March 2008 dismissed
  • Permission to appeal against Judge Marshall’s order of 30 January 2007 refused