Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) & Anor

Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) & Anor

Summary judgment was properly granted as there was no realistic prospect of a defence, no legal obligation for public funding, and no grounds for adjournment; Article 6 ECHR was not breached.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: John Roger Steinberg; Claimant/respondent: Pritchard Englefield (A Firm); Claimant/respondent: Michael Lesley Cohn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Legal Aid, Article 6 ECHR, Costs, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Human Rights Summary Judgment Legal Aid Article 6 ECHR Costs Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Roger Steinberg

Defendant/appellant

Pritchard Englefield (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

Michael Lesley Cohn

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate in absence of defendant
  2. 2 Whether Article 6 ECHR required provision of legal aid
  3. 3 Whether defendant's unavailability justified adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was properly granted as there was no realistic prospect of a defence, no legal obligation for public funding, and no grounds for adjournment; Article 6 ECHR was not breached.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs assessed at £25,000