Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale [2006] EWCA Civ 1002 (3 July 2006)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harlow & Milner Limited

Claimant/respondent

Linda Teasdale

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the final Charging Order should be stayed pending arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in making no order as to costs of the bankruptcy proceedings
  3. 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