Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale [2006] EWCA Civ 1002 (3 July 2006)
There was no merit in the grounds of appeal; the judge was entitled to abridge time for service, the ongoing arbitration did not justify a stay, and there was no basis to interfere with the costs order. The application for permission to appeal was refused as having no real prospect of success.
- Citation
- [2006] EWCA Civ 1002
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Harlow & Milner Limited; Defendant/appellant: Linda Teasdale
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 03 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Charging Orders, Enforcement of Adjudicator's Award, Summary Judgment, Case Management Powers, Costs of Bankruptcy Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Harlow & Milner Limited
Claimant/respondent
Linda Teasdale
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the final Charging Order should be stayed pending arbitration
- 2 Whether the judge erred in making no order as to costs of the bankruptcy proceedings
- 3 Whether short notice of the hearing invalidated the Charging Order
Ratio Decidendi
There was no merit in the grounds of appeal; the judge was entitled to abridge time for service, the ongoing arbitration did not justify a stay, and there was no basis to interfere with the costs order. The application for permission to appeal was refused as having no real prospect of success.
Court Disposition
application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application refused
- No stay granted
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