David Anthony Hinkel v Simmons & Simmons LLP

David Anthony Hinkel v Simmons & Simmons LLP

The applications to reopen the appeal were dismissed because the requirements of CPR 52.30 were not met: there was no exceptional circumstance, no real injustice, and no alternative remedy was lacking. The evidence relied on was not new or material, and the alleged breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations did not give rise to a civil claim. The recusal application was dismissed as there was no real possibility of bias. The adjournment application was dismissed due to inadequate medical evidence and Mr Hinkel's demonstrated ability to participate in the proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: David Anthony Hinkel; Respondent: Simmons & Simmons LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Applications to Reopen Appeal, Recusal, and Adjournment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Reopening of Appeals, Fraud Allegations, Money Laundering Regulations, Recusal of Judge, Adjournment on Medical Grounds
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Reopening of Appeals Fraud Allegations Money Laundering Regulations Recusal of Judge Adjournment on Medical Grounds

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Hinkel

Appellant

Simmons & Simmons LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Applications to Reopen Appeal, Recusal, and Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be reopened under CPR 52.30
  2. 2 Whether new evidence or ongoing regulatory investigations justify reopening the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the judge should recuse himself for alleged bias

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to reopen the appeal were dismissed because the requirements of CPR 52.30 were not met: there was no exceptional circumstance, no real injustice, and no alternative remedy was lacking. The evidence relied on was not new or material, and the alleged breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations did not give rise to a civil claim. The recusal application was dismissed as there was no real possibility of bias. The adjournment application was dismissed due to inadequate medical evidence and Mr Hinkel's demonstrated ability to participate in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • First to Sixth Applications dismissed as totally without merit
  • Seventh (recusal) Application dismissed as totally without merit