Speed & Anor v London Borough of Waltham Forest & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 88 (09 February 2011)

Speed & Anor v London Borough of Waltham Forest & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 88 (09 February 2011)

Claims against Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants were never struck out; the First Claimant's claim against the First Defendant was precariously struck out due to unresolved capacity and representation; costs should only be awarded for applications properly before the court; Second Claimant's appeal is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 88
Parties
First Claimant (a Minor Suing by His Father): William James Henry Speed; Second Claimant: Mark Julian Speed; First Defendant: London Borough of Waltham Forest; Second Defendant: EduAction (Waltham Forest) Limited; Third Defendant: Niels Chapman; Fourth Defendant: Jim Waddington; Fifth Defendant: Governing Body of Whitefield Schools & Centre
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; clarification of procedural status; Second Claimant's appeal adjourned.
Legal Topics
Strike Out of Claims, Stay of Proceedings, Capacity of Parties, Litigation Friend, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Education Law Strike Out of Claims Stay of Proceedings Capacity of Parties Litigation Friend Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William James Henry Speed

First Claimant (a Minor Suing by His Father)

Mark Julian Speed

Second Claimant

London Borough of Waltham Forest

First Defendant

EduAction (Waltham Forest) Limited

Second Defendant

Niels Chapman

Third Defendant

Jim Waddington

Fourth Defendant

Governing Body of Whitefield Schools & Centre

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants were struck out
  2. 2 Validity of strike-out order against First Claimant
  3. 3 Capacity of First Claimant to conduct proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Claims against Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants were never struck out; the First Claimant's claim against the First Defendant was precariously struck out due to unresolved capacity and representation; costs should only be awarded for applications properly before the court; Second Claimant's appeal is adjourned pending clarification of First Claimant's status.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; clarification of procedural status; Second Claimant's appeal adjourned.

Orders

  • Second Claimant's application for permission to appeal against Master Eyre's order is adjourned.
  • Court of Protection to consider First Claimant's capacity.