Gregory & Anor v Turner & Anor

Gregory & Anor v Turner & Anor

The applications were dismissed because there were no exceptional circumstances justifying reopening previous decisions on costs or merits; the power of attorney did not confer rights of audience or to conduct litigation; and there were no arguable grounds for judicial review of the planning authority's decision. The Gregorys' procedural complaints did not amount to a denial of a fair hearing or jurisdictional error.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rita Fleurette Gregory; Claimant/appellant: Joyce Rita Gregory; Defendant/respondent: Simon Turner; Defendant/respondent: Karen Turner; Defendant/respondent: North Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Permission to Appeal and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Rights of Audience, Power of Attorney, Trespass, Damages, Judicial Review, Small Claims Procedure, Costs, Planning Enforcement
Civil Procedure Property Law Agency Law Rights of Audience Power of Attorney Trespass Damages Judicial Review +3 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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rita Fleurette Gregory

Claimant/appellant

Joyce Rita Gregory

Claimant/appellant

Simon Turner

Defendant/respondent

Karen Turner

Defendant/respondent

North Somerset Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Permission to Appeal and Related Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should reopen previous decisions on costs and merits under exceptional jurisdiction (Taylor v Lawrence)
  2. 2 Whether a power of attorney confers rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience in court
  3. 3 Whether there were grounds for judicial review of the planning authority's refusal to enforce against a minor encroachment

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because there were no exceptional circumstances justifying reopening previous decisions on costs or merits; the power of attorney did not confer rights of audience or to conduct litigation; and there were no arguable grounds for judicial review of the planning authority's decision. The Gregorys' procedural complaints did not amount to a denial of a fair hearing or jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • All applications by the Gregorys (by Mr Morris as attorney) are dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal against Burton J's judgment is refused.