Freeguard v Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] EWCA Civ 485 (07 April 2005)

Freeguard v Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] EWCA Civ 485 (07 April 2005)

The Court of Appeal refused both applications because (1) it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a refusal to reopen a first instance decision under CPR 52.17, and (2) there was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify a second appeal regarding the refusal to reamend the Particulars of Claim, especially given the lack of new evidence and the finality of earlier decisions.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 485
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Margo Ann Freeguard; Defendant/respondent: Royal Bank of Scotland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decisions
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Reopening of Final Decisions, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Mortgagee's Duty of Care, Sale at Undervalue, Malicious Falsehood, Slander of Title
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Reopening of Final Decisions Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Mortgagee's Duty of Care Sale at Undervalue Malicious Falsehood +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Ann Freeguard

Claimant/applicant

Royal Bank of Scotland

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a refusal to reopen a first instance decision under CPR 52.17 (Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction)
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted for a second appeal regarding refusal to reamend Particulars of Claim to include claims relating to the Back Land and malicious falsehood/slander of title

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused both applications because (1) it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a refusal to reopen a first instance decision under CPR 52.17, and (2) there was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify a second appeal regarding the refusal to reamend the Particulars of Claim, especially given the lack of new evidence and the finality of earlier decisions.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal refused
  • No order as to costs