Din v Ahmed & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1283 (30 July 2002)

Din v Ahmed & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1283 (30 July 2002)

The applicant's claim disclosed no viable cause of action against the respondent, as the pleadings failed to show that the respondent received or benefited from the monies or that any enforceable agreement existed. The judge was correct to refuse further amendment and to dismiss the action under CPR Part 24.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1283
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Mohammad Din; Respondent/defendant: Naseem Ahmed; Respondent/defendant: R G Clinch; Respondent/defendant: Doel Wigley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Unjust Enrichment, Quasi Contract, Loan Agreements
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Default Judgment Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Unjust Enrichment Quasi Contract Loan Agreements

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

Parties

Mohammad Din

Applicant/claimant

Naseem Ahmed

Respondent/defendant

R G Clinch

Respondent/defendant

Doel Wigley

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment against the respondent should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim disclosed a viable cause of action against the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be granted permission to further amend his claim

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim disclosed no viable cause of action against the respondent, as the pleadings failed to show that the respondent received or benefited from the monies or that any enforceable agreement existed. The judge was correct to refuse further amendment and to dismiss the action under CPR Part 24.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Order of Judge Moseley QC affirmed