Cedar Holdings Ltd v Ray & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 669 (23 April 2002)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Ray acted 'promptly' under CPR 39.3(5)(a) in applying to set aside a possession order
  2. 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