Cedar Holdings Ltd v Ray & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 669 (23 April 2002)
Mrs Ray did not act promptly within the meaning of CPR 39.3(5)(a) because she delayed over six years after learning of the possession order before applying to set it aside; therefore, the court had no power to set aside the order and permission to appeal is refused.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 669
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Cedar Holdings Ltd; 1st Defendant/appellant: Cornelius Ray; 2nd Defendant/appellant: Veronica Ray
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 April 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Possession Orders, Promptness Under CPR 39.3, Finality of Judgments, Appeal Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cedar Holdings Ltd
Claimant/respondent
Cornelius Ray
1st Defendant/appellant
Veronica Ray
2nd Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mrs Ray acted 'promptly' under CPR 39.3(5)(a) in applying to set aside a possession order
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal should grant permission for a second appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Mrs Ray did not act promptly within the meaning of CPR 39.3(5)(a) because she delayed over six years after learning of the possession order before applying to set it aside; therefore, the court had no power to set aside the order and permission to appeal is refused.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- No order for costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment