Cant v Seton

Cant v Seton

Although the judge erred in finding no jurisdiction, there was no evidence of ongoing harassment or threat, and the appellant's subsequent County Court proceedings overtook the application. There was no basis for discretionary relief, and the appeal was an abuse of process.

Parties
Appellant: Lee Cant; Respondent: Stephen Seton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Anti Harassment Injunction, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Injunctions Jurisdiction Anti Harassment Injunction Abuse of Process

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Cant

Appellant

Stephen Seton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-harassment injunction under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be allowed despite the judge's error on jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Although the judge erred in finding no jurisdiction, there was no evidence of ongoing harassment or threat, and the appellant's subsequent County Court proceedings overtook the application. There was no basis for discretionary relief, and the appeal was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed