LTE Scientific Ltd. v Thomas & Anor

LTE Scientific Ltd. v Thomas & Anor

Permission to appeal was refused on the issues of expert evidence and cross-examination, as the judge's decisions were reasonable and no real prejudice was shown. However, the judge erred in excluding Mr Perry's third affidavit without considering prejudice; since no real prejudice to Mr Thomas was demonstrated, the affidavit (from paragraph 11 onwards) should be admitted, with Mr Thomas given time to reply.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: LTE Scientific Limited; First Defendant/respondent: David Anthony Thomas; Second Defendant: Barbara Anne Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal From Case Management Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal granted in relation to Mr Perry's third affidavit; appeal allowed to that extent only; otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Injunctions, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Injunctions Case Management Admissibility of Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LTE Scientific Limited

Claimant/applicant

David Anthony Thomas

First Defendant/respondent

Barbara Anne Thomas

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal From Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to adduce further factual evidence (Mr Perry's third affidavit)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to adduce expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused on the issues of expert evidence and cross-examination, as the judge's decisions were reasonable and no real prejudice was shown. However, the judge erred in excluding Mr Perry's third affidavit without considering prejudice; since no real prejudice to Mr Thomas was demonstrated, the affidavit (from paragraph 11 onwards) should be admitted, with Mr Thomas given time to reply.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal granted in relation to Mr Perry's third affidavit; appeal allowed to that extent only; otherwise refused.

Orders

  • Mr Perry's third affidavit (paragraphs 11 onwards) admitted as evidence for the preliminary issue.
  • Mr Thomas permitted to reply to the affidavit by 4.00 pm on Wednesday.