Steinberg v Englefield & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 824 (05 July 2005)

Steinberg v Englefield & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 824 (05 July 2005)

The overlooked psychiatric report would not have led to an adjournment or different outcome, as it did not show the appellant would ever be able to conduct his case or secure representation. The interests of justice, finality, and the public interest outweighed the appellant's absence. No new evidence or argument justified reopening the appeal.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 824
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Jonathan Steinberg; Respondents/claimants: Pritchard Englefield & Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Application to Set Aside Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application to set aside judgment refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Right to Fair Trial, Publication in Defamation, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Defamation Setting Aside Judgments Summary Judgment Abuse of Process Right to Fair Trial Publication in Defamation Article 6 ECHR

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Steinberg

Appellant/defendant

Pritchard Englefield & Another

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Application to Set Aside Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal's judgment should be set aside due to the appellant's absence and psychiatric condition
  2. 2 Whether the psychiatric report would have led to an adjournment or different outcome
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment infringed the appellant's right of access to court under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The overlooked psychiatric report would not have led to an adjournment or different outcome, as it did not show the appellant would ever be able to conduct his case or secure representation. The interests of justice, finality, and the public interest outweighed the appellant's absence. No new evidence or argument justified reopening the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside judgment refused

Orders

  • Refusal to set aside Court of Appeal judgment of 3 March 2005
  • Refusal of stay of execution of Eady J's order