Englefield & Anor v Steinberg [2001] EWCA Civ 436 (26 March 2001)

Englefield & Anor v Steinberg [2001] EWCA Civ 436 (26 March 2001)

There was no proper basis to challenge the case management orders, which were proper and within the judge's discretion. No evidence established lack of impartiality. The orders did not deprive the applicant of a right to jury trial on matters reserved for the jury. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 436
Parties
Claimant: Pritchard Englefield and Another; Defendant/applicant: Steinberg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Case Management Order and Refusal to Recuse, Post Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Case Management Orders, Recusal of Judge, Summary Judgment, Jury Trial in Defamation, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Defamation Case Management Orders Recusal of Judge Summary Judgment Jury Trial in Defamation Costs Orders

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

Parties

Pritchard Englefield and Another

Claimant

Steinberg

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Case Management Order and Refusal to Recuse, Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against a case management order requiring further information and imposing an unless order in a defamation action
  2. 2 Whether the judge (Mr Justice Gray) should have recused himself for alleged lack of impartiality
  3. 3 Whether the orders deprived the applicant of a right to jury trial in defamation

Ratio Decidendi

There was no proper basis to challenge the case management orders, which were proper and within the judge's discretion. No evidence established lack of impartiality. The orders did not deprive the applicant of a right to jury trial on matters reserved for the jury. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

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