Miller v Garton Shires (a firm) [2006] EWCA Civ 1386 (25 October 2006)

Miller v Garton Shires (a firm) [2006] EWCA Civ 1386 (25 October 2006)

Permission for a second appeal is refused because the case does not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor is there any other compelling reason to grant permission. The District Judge was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the claimant's underlying claim was so weak as to have no real prospect of success, and summary judgment was properly granted. The application of established principles did not involve any error justifying a second appeal.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1386
Parties
Applicant/claimant: David Edward Miller; First Respondent/defendant: Garton Shires (a firm formerly known as Gartons); Second Respondent/defendant: Ison Harrison (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (second Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil Division) Following Dismissal of Claim and First Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Loss of Chance, Second Appeals, Professional Negligence by Solicitors, Application of CPR 24.2 and 52.13
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Summary Judgment Loss of Chance Second Appeals Professional Negligence by Solicitors Application of CPR 24.2 and 52.13

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Edward Miller

Applicant/claimant

Garton Shires (a firm formerly known as Gartons)

First Respondent/defendant

Ison Harrison (a firm)

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (second Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil Division) Following Dismissal of Claim and First Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a real prospect of success in a professional negligence claim against his former solicitors for failure to issue proceedings in time against a third party driver
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was properly granted under CPR 24.2
  3. 3 Whether permission for a second appeal should be granted under CPR 52.13(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for a second appeal is refused because the case does not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor is there any other compelling reason to grant permission. The District Judge was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the claimant's underlying claim was so weak as to have no real prospect of success, and summary judgment was properly granted. The application of established principles did not involve any error justifying a second appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.