Ali v Keith Hudson (t/a Hudson Freeman Berg) [2003] EWCA Civ 1793 (11 December 2003)

Ali v Keith Hudson (t/a Hudson Freeman Berg) [2003] EWCA Civ 1793 (11 December 2003)

The order requiring Mr Ali to pay £1,750 into court as a condition for proceeding with his appeal was wrong in principle, as his conduct did not amount to regular flouting of court orders or want of good faith, and the delay was largely attributable to court and solicitor failures. The imposition of such a condition would unjustifiably stifle his right of access to the court. The appeal was allowed and the order set aside, permitting Mr Ali to proceed with his appeal against the original striking out of his action.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1793
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Mohammed Waris Ali; Respondent/claimant: Keith Hudson (trading as Hudson Freeman Berg)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Leveson J, Following Earlier Orders of District Judge Hasan and Judge Green QC
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order requiring payment into court set aside; Mr Ali permitted to proceed with appeal against striking out of his action.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Access to Justice, Case Management Powers, Automatic Stay Under CPR, Professional Negligence by Solicitor
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Security for Costs Access to Justice Case Management Powers Automatic Stay Under CPR Professional Negligence by Solicitor

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Waris Ali

Appellant/respondent

Keith Hudson (trading as Hudson Freeman Berg)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Leveson J, Following Earlier Orders of District Judge Hasan and Judge Green QC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to order a stay of appeal pending payment into court by an impecunious appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct justified an order for payment into court as a condition to proceed with appeal
  3. 3 Whether such an order would stifle the appellant's right of access to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The order requiring Mr Ali to pay £1,750 into court as a condition for proceeding with his appeal was wrong in principle, as his conduct did not amount to regular flouting of court orders or want of good faith, and the delay was largely attributable to court and solicitor failures. The imposition of such a condition would unjustifiably stifle his right of access to the court. The appeal was allowed and the order set aside, permitting Mr Ali to proceed with his appeal against the original striking out of his action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order requiring payment into court set aside; Mr Ali permitted to proceed with appeal against striking out of his action.

Orders

  • Order of Leveson J requiring payment of £1,750 into court set aside.
  • Mr Ali permitted to proceed with his appeal against District Judge Hasan's order.