Pelling v Bow County Court

The committal orders were invalid because the judgment creditor failed to comply with CPR 71.4 and 71.5, specifically regarding the affidavit requirements and provision for travelling expenses.

Parties: Applicant: Michael John Pelling; Defendant: Bow County Court
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 February 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court)
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Committal Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Judicial Review, Human Rights Act

Civil Procedure Committal Orders Enforcement of Judgments Judicial Review Human Rights Act

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Michael John Pelling

Applicant

Bow County Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the committal orders against Dr Pelling were valid given non-compliance with CPR 71.4 and 71.5
2 Whether Dr Pelling's additional claims under the Human Rights Act should be determined by the Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The committal orders were invalid because the judgment creditor failed to comply with CPR 71.4 and 71.5, specifically regarding the affidavit requirements and provision for travelling expenses.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Committal orders set aside
Defendant to pay Applicant's costs, summarily assessed at £250, to be set against the judgment debt