NMB Ltd (t/a Hellier Commercial Finance Ltd) v Merrick-Hide [2001] EWCA Civ 572 (5 April 2001)

NMB Ltd (t/a Hellier Commercial Finance Ltd) v Merrick-Hide [2001] EWCA Civ 572 (5 April 2001)

The judge was entitled to grant summary judgment in the absence of a properly substantiated defence, as the defendants failed to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth and did not raise a real prospect of defending the claim to the extent of £35,000.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 572
Parties
Claimant/respondent: N M B Limited Trading as Hellier Commercial Finance Limited; Defendant/applicant: Keith Merrick-Hide; Defendant/applicant: Mary Minnie Merrick Hide
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Factoring Agreement, Summary Judgment, Personal Indemnity, Case Management, Appeal Procedure
Contract Law Commercial Law Factoring Agreement Summary Judgment Personal Indemnity Case Management Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N M B Limited Trading as Hellier Commercial Finance Limited

Claimant/respondent

Keith Merrick-Hide

Defendant/applicant

Mary Minnie Merrick Hide

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting summary judgment for the claimants in the sum of £35,000 plus costs
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were denied a fair opportunity to present their defence due to absence of oral evidence and cross-examination
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a statement of truth from the defendants justified the judge's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to grant summary judgment in the absence of a properly substantiated defence, as the defendants failed to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth and did not raise a real prospect of defending the claim to the extent of £35,000.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application dismissed