Graham v Chorley Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 92 (21 February 2006)

Graham v Chorley Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 92 (21 February 2006)

The judge committed a serious procedural irregularity by entertaining a submission of no case to answer without putting the defendants to their election and applying the wrong standard of proof, thereby causing injustice to the claimant and depriving her of the opportunity to strengthen her case.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 92
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Neina Graham; Defendants/respondents: Chorley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment, Permission to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Submission of No Case to Answer, Defective Premises Act 1972, Procedural Irregularity, Standard of Proof, Occupier's Liability
Civil Procedure Tort Law Submission of No Case to Answer Defective Premises Act 1972 Procedural Irregularity Standard of Proof Occupier's Liability

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neina Graham

Claimant/appellant

Chorley Borough Council

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment, Permission to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred by entertaining a submission of no case to answer without putting defendants to their election
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct standard of proof
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularity caused injustice to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The judge committed a serious procedural irregularity by entertaining a submission of no case to answer without putting the defendants to their election and applying the wrong standard of proof, thereby causing injustice to the claimant and depriving her of the opportunity to strengthen her case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment set aside
  • Retrial ordered before a different judge