Nesbitt v Holt
Permission to appeal is granted because there is a realistic prospect of success on the abuse of process issue, and an important question of principle or other compelling reason for the appeal to proceed, particularly regarding the application of abuse of process where the defendant in the second proceedings was only a witness in the first.
- Parties
- Appellant: Nesbitt; Respondent: Holt
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 November 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
- Outcome
- permission to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Authority of Representatives, Disability Discrimination, Employment Law
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nesbitt
Appellant
Holt
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim against Gateshead Citizens Advice Bureau is an abuse of process in light of the Employment Tribunal's finding of actual authority
- 2 Whether the approach to the burden of proof on abuse of process was correct
- 3 Whether the abuse of process jurisdiction applies where the defendant in the second proceedings was only a witness in the first proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal is granted because there is a realistic prospect of success on the abuse of process issue, and an important question of principle or other compelling reason for the appeal to proceed, particularly regarding the application of abuse of process where the defendant in the second proceedings was only a witness in the first.
Court Disposition
permission to appeal granted
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal granted
- Transcript of judgment to be provided to Mr Nesbitt at public expense
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment