Robert Hurst v Evelyn Green & Ors

Robert Hurst v Evelyn Green & Ors

The application was refused because it was a further attempt to re-litigate issues already determined, based on arguments and evidence previously considered and rejected as totally without merit. The alleged new evidence did not amount to fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice, nor would it have caused the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Robert Hurst; Respondent: Mrs Evelyn Green; Respondent: Mr David Green; Respondent: Mr Ian Mablin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/bankruptcy) / Application for Permission to Make Further Applications Under Extended Civil Restraint Order; Reconsideration and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extended Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Annulment of Bankruptcy, Summary Judgment, Fraud and Collusion Allegations
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Extended Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process Annulment of Bankruptcy Summary Judgment Fraud and Collusion Allegations

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Robert Hurst

Applicant

Mrs Evelyn Green

Respondent

Mr David Green

Respondent

Mr Ian Mablin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/bankruptcy) / Application for Permission to Make Further Applications Under Extended Civil Restraint Order; Reconsideration and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hurst should be granted permission to make further applications to review, annul, or rescind previous orders and judgments relating to his bankruptcy
  2. 2 Whether the application discloses any new or material evidence of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice sufficient to justify revisiting the judgment debt
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because it was a further attempt to re-litigate issues already determined, based on arguments and evidence previously considered and rejected as totally without merit. The alleged new evidence did not amount to fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice, nor would it have caused the original judge to reach a different conclusion. The application was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application refused; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to make further applications under the Extended Civil Restraint Order is refused.
  • Permission to appeal is refused.