Thiebaud v Thiebaud & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 344 (1 March 2002)

Thiebaud v Thiebaud & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 344 (1 March 2002)

The defendants' persistent refusal to comply with valid court orders justified striking out their defence and debarring them from defending. The subsequent order for sale and possession was appropriate given the trust's purpose and the claimant's rights. There was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR as the procedures were fair and justified.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 344
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Marc Francis Thiebaud; Defendant/applicant: Oliver Thiebaud; Defendant/applicant: Virginia Bromley Thiebaud
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Against Orders Striking Out Defence and Ordering Sale of Property
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trusts of Land, Striking Out Defence, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Order for Sale, Possession Proceedings
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Trusts of Land Striking Out Defence Article 8 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Order for Sale +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Francis Thiebaud

Claimant/respondent

Oliver Thiebaud

Defendant/applicant

Virginia Bromley Thiebaud

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Against Orders Striking Out Defence and Ordering Sale of Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether striking out the defence and debarring the defendants from defending was justified
  2. 2 Whether the order for sale and possession of the property was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the orders breached the defendants' rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' persistent refusal to comply with valid court orders justified striking out their defence and debarring them from defending. The subsequent order for sale and possession was appropriate given the trust's purpose and the claimant's rights. There was no breach of Articles 6 or 8 ECHR as the procedures were fair and justified.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to have an order for possession, not to be enforced before 4.00 pm on Friday 5 April 2002
  • Order for sale of the property at 67 Twilley Street, Earlsfield, London, SW18