Tennero Ltd v Arnold [2006] EWHC 1530 (QB) (06 July 2006)

Tennero Ltd v Arnold [2006] EWHC 1530 (QB) (06 July 2006)

It is an abuse of process for a defendant to pursue an appeal against a refusal to adjourn a trial after also applying to set aside the resulting judgment under CPR 39.3(3) and failing. The proper course is to appeal the refusal to set aside, not the original refusal to adjourn. In any event, the refusal to adjourn was within the trial judge's discretion on the evidence, and the application to set aside failed on the merits.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1530
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Tennero Limited; Defendant/appellant: Paul Arnold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (civil) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Application for Permission to Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Adjournment of Trial, Abuse of Process, Appeal Procedure, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Contract Law Setting Aside Judgment Adjournment of Trial Abuse of Process Appeal Procedure Fiduciary Duties

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

Parties

Tennero Limited

Claimant/respondent

Paul Arnold

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (civil) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Application for Permission to Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is an abuse of process to appeal a refusal to adjourn after pursuing an application under CPR 39.3(3)
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to adjourn the trial was justified
  3. 3 Whether the judgment against the absent defendant should be set aside under CPR 39.3(5)

Ratio Decidendi

It is an abuse of process for a defendant to pursue an appeal against a refusal to adjourn a trial after also applying to set aside the resulting judgment under CPR 39.3(3) and failing. The proper course is to appeal the refusal to set aside, not the original refusal to adjourn. In any event, the refusal to adjourn was within the trial judge's discretion on the evidence, and the application to set aside failed on the merits.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal from the order of Judge Cowell dated 17 May 2004 is refused
  • No order for a rehearing or setting aside of the judgment