Forrester Ketley & Co v Brent [2001] EWCA Civ 199 (29 January 2001)

Forrester Ketley & Co v Brent [2001] EWCA Civ 199 (29 January 2001)

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the judge and master acted within their discretion to advance the case towards trial, address technical irregularities, and manage costs, and that no real prospect of success or error in principle was shown to justify appellate intervention.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 199
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Forrester Ketley & Co; Defendant/applicant: David Brent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Case Management, Costs, Patent Agent Negligence, Overriding Objective, Human Rights Act Arguments
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Appeals Case Management Costs Patent Agent Negligence Overriding Objective Human Rights Act Arguments

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

Parties

Forrester Ketley & Co

Claimant/respondent

David Brent

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against interlocutory orders regarding pleadings, particulars, and case management
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularities in service and constitution of claim warranted striking out the claim
  3. 3 Whether the court should interfere with case management decisions and costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the judge and master acted within their discretion to advance the case towards trial, address technical irregularities, and manage costs, and that no real prospect of success or error in principle was shown to justify appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused against the orders of 26 May 2000 and 23 November 2000.
  • Applications dismissed.