Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v JF Emmott & Ors

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v JF Emmott & Ors

There are no exceptional circumstances or real injustice to justify re-opening the appeal; the claims sought to be resurrected have already been finally determined in fresh proceedings, and any new claims can be pursued in fresh proceedings subject to ECRO permission. The application is totally without merit and an effective alternative remedy exists.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd; Respondent: J. F. Emmott; Respondent: M. B. Robinson (as one of the Executors of M. L. B. Robinson (Deceased)); Respondent: M R Law Limited; Respondent: Kerman & Co LLP; Respondent: P. A. Shepherd KC; Respondent: Shepherd Legal Limited; Respondent: T. I. Sinclair (A Bankrupt); Respondent: Sokol Holdings Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Open Appeal / Court of Appeal, Oral Hearing
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Opening Appeals, Strike Out Orders, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel, Costs Recovery, Assignment of Claims, Jurisdiction Under CPR 52.30
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Re Opening Appeals Strike Out Orders Abuse of Process Issue Estoppel Costs Recovery Assignment of Claims +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

Applicant/appellant

J. F. Emmott

Respondent

M. B. Robinson (as one of the Executors of M. L. B. Robinson (Deceased))

Respondent

M R Law Limited

Respondent

Kerman & Co LLP

Respondent

P. A. Shepherd KC

Respondent

Shepherd Legal Limited

Respondent

T. I. Sinclair (A Bankrupt)

Respondent

Sokol Holdings Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Re Open Appeal / Court of Appeal, Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be re-opened under CPR 52.30
  2. 2 Whether the strike-out order was disproportionate
  3. 3 Whether there is a real injustice or exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

There are no exceptional circumstances or real injustice to justify re-opening the appeal; the claims sought to be resurrected have already been finally determined in fresh proceedings, and any new claims can be pursued in fresh proceedings subject to ECRO permission. The application is totally without merit and an effective alternative remedy exists.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to re-open appeal refused
  • No permission to appeal granted