Nesbitt v Holt

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nesbitt

Appellant

Holt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

  1. 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. 2 Whether the approach to the burden of proof on abuse of process was correct
  3. 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