Binod Kumar Sharma v Edith Clara Maria Lovegrove

Binod Kumar Sharma v Edith Clara Maria Lovegrove

There was a serious and significant delay in filing the application for permission to appeal, with no good reason for the delay, and the judge at first instance exercised his discretion properly in refusing to extend time; therefore, there is no real prospect of success on appeal nor any other compelling reason to grant permission.

Parties
Appellant: Binod Kumar Sharma; Respondent: Edith Clara Maria Lovegrove
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal, Procedural Default
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Permission to Appeal Procedural Default

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binod Kumar Sharma

Appellant

Edith Clara Maria Lovegrove

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the refusal to extend time for seeking permission to appeal a previous order refusing relief from sanction.

Ratio Decidendi

There was a serious and significant delay in filing the application for permission to appeal, with no good reason for the delay, and the judge at first instance exercised his discretion properly in refusing to extend time; therefore, there is no real prospect of success on appeal nor any other compelling reason to grant permission.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused.