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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether warrants of execution were improperly issued without permission
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment