Gayle v Gayle & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 462 (23 March 2006)

Gayle v Gayle & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 462 (23 March 2006)

There was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify a second appeal. The Recorder's findings of fact and credibility were within his discretion, and the claimant's procedural failures and delay in appealing were not excusable. The requirements for permission to appeal and extension of time were not met.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 462
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Egbert Adolphus Gayle; Defendant/respondent: Dasmie Rose Gayle; Defendant/respondent: Maizie McKnight
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Declarations of Trust, Use and Occupation, Appeals Procedure, Extension of Time
Property Law Civil Procedure Beneficial Ownership Declarations of Trust Use and Occupation Appeals Procedure Extension of Time

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Egbert Adolphus Gayle

Claimant/appellant

Dasmie Rose Gayle

Defendant/respondent

Maizie McKnight

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a beneficial interest in the property at 74 St. Asaph Road
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing an adjournment and in his findings of fact
  3. 3 Whether there was a compelling reason for a second appeal to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

There was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify a second appeal. The Recorder's findings of fact and credibility were within his discretion, and the claimant's procedural failures and delay in appealing were not excusable. The requirements for permission to appeal and extension of time were not met.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Extension of time refused