Capital Funding One Ltd v Esqulant & Anor

Capital Funding One Ltd v Esqulant & Anor

The judge was correct to permit Mr Esqulant to give evidence as a witness for the Respondent under a genuine witness summons. There was no procedural ambush or collusion. Any failure to serve a witness statement was not deliberate, and the Respondent believed service had occurred. Even if relief from sanctions was required, it would have been granted. The prejudice to the Appellant was minimal and did not justify excluding crucial evidence. The appeal was dismissed as there was no serious procedural irregularity or injustice.

Parties
Claimant: Capital Funding One Limited; 1st Defendant: Daniel John Esqulant; 2nd Defendant / Respondent: Alison Jayne Esqulant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Witness Evidence, Relief From Sanctions, Beneficial Interest in Property, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Property Law Witness Evidence Relief From Sanctions Beneficial Interest in Property Case Management Discretion

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital Funding One Limited

Claimant

Daniel John Esqulant

1st Defendant

Alison Jayne Esqulant

2nd Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting Mr Esqulant to give evidence despite non-compliance with witness statement directions
  2. 2 Whether CPR 32.10 or CPR 34 governs the admission of evidence from a party under witness summons
  3. 3 Whether there was a serious procedural irregularity causing injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to permit Mr Esqulant to give evidence as a witness for the Respondent under a genuine witness summons. There was no procedural ambush or collusion. Any failure to serve a witness statement was not deliberate, and the Respondent believed service had occurred. Even if relief from sanctions was required, it would have been granted. The prejudice to the Appellant was minimal and did not justify excluding crucial evidence. The appeal was dismissed as there was no serious procedural irregularity or injustice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.