Bostock v Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 451 (17 April 2008)
The trial judge's refusal to admit late evidence was a proper exercise of discretion, justified by fairness to the claimant and case management considerations. The grounds of appeal were unarguable as they sought to relitigate factual findings without error of law.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] EWCA Civ 451
- Parties
- Appellant: Bostock; First Defendant: Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd; Second Defendant: Lexington Payne Homes Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Asbestos Related Illness, Admissibility of Evidence, Case Management, Findings of Fact
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bostock
Appellant
Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd
First Defendant
Lexington Payne Homes Ltd
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit late evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge's findings of fact were perverse or unsupported by evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's refusal to admit late evidence was a proper exercise of discretion, justified by fairness to the claimant and case management considerations. The grounds of appeal were unarguable as they sought to relitigate factual findings without error of law.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application refused
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