Bostock v Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd & Anor

Bostock v Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd & Anor

The application to admit late evidence was properly refused by the trial judge for reasons of fairness, procedural efficiency, and questionable provenance of documents. The grounds of appeal did not disclose any error of law or findings not open to the judge on the evidence. The appeal was unarguable and permission to appeal was refused.

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 refused
Legal Topics
Asbestos Related Illness, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence, Findings of Fact
Tort Civil Procedure Asbestos Related Illness Case Management Admissibility of Evidence Findings of Fact

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit late evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's findings of fact were perverse or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application to admit late evidence was properly refused by the trial judge for reasons of fairness, procedural efficiency, and questionable provenance of documents. The grounds of appeal did not disclose any error of law or findings not open to the judge on the evidence. The appeal was unarguable and permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused