Joyce v James & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1367 (23 August 2001)

Joyce v James & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1367 (23 August 2001)

The criteria for granting permission to appeal for a second appeal under rule 52.13 are not met; the case management decision was discretionary and does not raise a point of principle; no injustice is caused to the defendants by allowing the matter to proceed as ordered.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1367
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Alfred Thomas James Joyce; Defendant: Mark Lloyd James; Applicant/2nd Defendant: TRW Steering-Systems Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (pta) From Case Management Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Case Management Permission to Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Thomas James Joyce

Respondent/claimant

Mark Lloyd James

Defendant

TRW Steering-Systems Ltd

Applicant/2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (pta) From Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted for a second appeal against case management directions allowing claimant to rely on two psychiatric experts

Ratio Decidendi

The criteria for granting permission to appeal for a second appeal under rule 52.13 are not met; the case management decision was discretionary and does not raise a point of principle; no injustice is caused to the defendants by allowing the matter to proceed as ordered.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • PTA refused