Watson v Evershed LLP

Watson v Evershed LLP

The application was refused because no claim form had been issued, no notice was given to the proposed defendants, there was no demonstrated urgency or secrecy, and the applicant failed to address the cross-undertaking in damages. The application was totally without merit and could not possibly result in any order being made.

Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Watson; Applicant: Craig Watson; Proposed Defendant: Eversheds LLP and their agents (inc Paul Mitchell, Hailsham Chambers)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (without Claim Form) / Preliminary Hearing, Application Refused
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Fraud on the Court, Possession Orders, Appeals, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Civil Procedure Injunctions Property Law Interim Injunctions Without Notice Applications Fraud on the Court Possession Orders Appeals +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Watson

Applicant

Craig Watson

Applicant

Eversheds LLP and their agents (inc Paul Mitchell, Hailsham Chambers)

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (without Claim Form) / Preliminary Hearing, Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant an interim injunction without a claim form or notice to the proposed defendants
  2. 2 Whether there is urgency or justification for a without notice application
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown grounds for an extension of time to appeal a possession order

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because no claim form had been issued, no notice was given to the proposed defendants, there was no demonstrated urgency or secrecy, and the applicant failed to address the cross-undertaking in damages. The application was totally without merit and could not possibly result in any order being made.

Court Disposition

application refused