Chambers v Rooney & Anor

Chambers v Rooney & Anor

There was no arguable basis for the proposed appeal. The judge below correctly applied the law in striking out claims that were unsound in law, time-barred, or lacking in factual basis. The applicant failed to act promptly regarding defamation claims and provided no substantive grounds for punitive damages or bias. Granting an extension of time would serve no practical purpose.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs Beverley Chambers; First Defendant/respondent: Mr Crispin Mark Rooney; Second Defendant/respondent: Ms Marianne Wiles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Limitation of Actions, Executor Duties, Costs, Punitive Damages
Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Defamation Extension of Time Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Limitation of Actions Executor Duties +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Beverley Chambers

Claimant/appellant

Mr Crispin Mark Rooney

First Defendant/respondent

Ms Marianne Wiles

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the County Court order
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in striking out various heads and sub-heads of claim
  3. 3 Whether the defamation claims were wrongly struck out as time-barred

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable basis for the proposed appeal. The judge below correctly applied the law in striking out claims that were unsound in law, time-barred, or lacking in factual basis. The applicant failed to act promptly regarding defamation claims and provided no substantive grounds for punitive damages or bias. Granting an extension of time would serve no practical purpose.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused.
  • No further orders made.