Carrick v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1376 (27 May 2002)

Carrick v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1376 (27 May 2002)

The warrants of execution were properly issued as permission was not required under the relevant rules, and there was no procedural unfairness since the applications were made by the applicant herself and she had adequate opportunity to present her case.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1376
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Mary Elizabeth Carrick; Defendant/respondent: Kingston upon Hull City Council; Defendant/respondent: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Warrants of Execution, Costs Orders, Procedural Fairness, Permission to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Elizabeth Carrick

Claimant/applicant

Kingston upon Hull City Council

Defendant/respondent

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether warrants of execution were improperly issued without permission
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the handling of applications to set aside warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants of execution were properly issued as permission was not required under the relevant rules, and there was no procedural unfairness since the applications were made by the applicant herself and she had adequate opportunity to present her case.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal dismissed