King v Chang [2001] EWCA Civ 88 (19 January 2001)

King v Chang [2001] EWCA Civ 88 (19 January 2001)

The trial judge was entitled to refuse admission of the Jones' statements due to lack of proper notice, and their evidence would not have affected the outcome. The judge's findings on liability were justified by the evidence, and refusal to adjourn for legal representation was within discretion. No grounds for appeal were established.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 88
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Timothy Charles King; Defendant/respondent: Geimon Stephen Singwah Chang
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal and to rely upon further evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Negligence, Admissibility of Evidence, Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident Negligence Admissibility of Evidence Extension of Time Permission to Appeal

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Charles King

Claimant/applicant

Geimon Stephen Singwah Chang

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit witness statements under the Civil Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment for legal representation
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's findings on liability were justified by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to refuse admission of the Jones' statements due to lack of proper notice, and their evidence would not have affected the outcome. The judge's findings on liability were justified by the evidence, and refusal to adjourn for legal representation was within discretion. No grounds for appeal were established.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal and to rely upon further evidence refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Application to rely on further evidence refused