McDonald v Rose & Ors

McDonald v Rose & Ors

The appellant's notice was filed out of time as the 21-day period ran from the date of the substantive judgment, not the later order. The applicant's solicitors failed to seek an extension of time, and ignorance of the rules is not a good reason for default. The application for relief from sanctions was borderline but ultimately unnecessary to decide, as the appeal had no real prospect of success. The judge's findings of fact were justified and not open to legitimate challenge.

Parties
Applicant: Gary Joseph McDonald; 1st Respondent: Michelle Rose; 2nd Respondent: Mary McCrorie; 3rd Respondent: John McDonald; 4th Respondent: Liam McDonald; 5th Respondent: Maria Watkins; 6th Respondent: Fintan McDonald; 7th Respondent: Patricia Duckett; 8th Respondent: W & M McDonald (Pencarn Farms) Limited; 9th Respondent: Octavian Development & Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeals, Extension of Time, Relief From Sanctions, Proprietary Estoppel, Findings of Fact
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Probate Appeals Extension of Time Relief From Sanctions Proprietary Estoppel Findings of Fact

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Joseph McDonald

Applicant

Michelle Rose

1st Respondent

Mary McCrorie

2nd Respondent

John McDonald

3rd Respondent

Liam McDonald

4th Respondent

Maria Watkins

5th Respondent

Fintan McDonald

6th Respondent

Patricia Duckett

7th Respondent

W & M McDonald (Pencarn Farms) Limited

8th Respondent

Octavian Development & Construction Limited

9th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's notice was filed out of time
  2. 2 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for late filing
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's notice was filed out of time as the 21-day period ran from the date of the substantive judgment, not the later order. The applicant's solicitors failed to seek an extension of time, and ignorance of the rules is not a good reason for default. The application for relief from sanctions was borderline but ultimately unnecessary to decide, as the appeal had no real prospect of success. The judge's findings of fact were justified and not open to legitimate challenge.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Application for permission to appeal refused