Atherton v Ogunlende & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1844 (20 November 2001)

Atherton v Ogunlende & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1844 (20 November 2001)

There was no real prospect of success on appeal as the cross-claim was not substantiated, the evidence could have been presented earlier, the assignment and notice were not grounds to set aside the bankruptcy order, and Article 6 ECHR was not breached as the applicant had access to court.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1844
Parties
Applicant: Clive William Atherton; Respondent: Kola John Ogunlende; Respondent: Geoffrey Myerson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; applications for permission to appeal and to file fresh evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Order, Cross Claim, Assignment of Debt, Ancillary Relief, Article 6 ECHR, Permission to Appeal
Insolvency Bankruptcy Family Law Bankruptcy Order Cross Claim Assignment of Debt Ancillary Relief Article 6 ECHR +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Clive William Atherton

Applicant

Kola John Ogunlende

Respondent

Geoffrey Myerson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted for a second appeal against dismissal of applications to stay or annul a bankruptcy order
  2. 2 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether there is a substantive cross-claim in ancillary relief proceedings sufficient to challenge the bankruptcy order

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real prospect of success on appeal as the cross-claim was not substantiated, the evidence could have been presented earlier, the assignment and notice were not grounds to set aside the bankruptcy order, and Article 6 ECHR was not breached as the applicant had access to court.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; applications for permission to appeal and to file fresh evidence refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time for making the application granted.
  • Permission to appeal refused.