Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 1706 (Ch) (23 June 2021)

Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 1706 (Ch) (23 June 2021)

The cessation of legal representation and impecuniosity of the Brakes do not constitute a material change of circumstances justifying variation of the order; litigants in person are not entitled to free hard copies of trial bundles, especially where an electronic copy is provided; the existing order stands.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1706 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Axnoller Events Limited; Defendant: Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Defendant: Andrew Young Brake; Claimant: Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Claimant: Andrew Young Brake; Claimant: Tom Conyers D'Arcy; Defendant: The Chedington Court Estate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts/probate / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Trial Bundle Order
Outcome
Application to vary the order refused
Legal Topics
Trial Bundle Provision, Litigants in Person, Variation of Court Orders, Costs of Litigation, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Property Law Trial Bundle Provision Litigants in Person Variation of Court Orders Costs of Litigation Access to Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Axnoller Events Limited

Claimant

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Defendant

Andrew Young Brake

Defendant

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Claimant

Andrew Young Brake

Claimant

Tom Conyers D'Arcy

Claimant

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts/probate / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Trial Bundle Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary an order requiring provision of a hard copy trial bundle to an unrepresented, impecunious party without charge
  2. 2 Whether change in representation or impecuniosity justifies variation of a procedural order

Ratio Decidendi

The cessation of legal representation and impecuniosity of the Brakes do not constitute a material change of circumstances justifying variation of the order; litigants in person are not entitled to free hard copies of trial bundles, especially where an electronic copy is provided; the existing order stands.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the order refused

Orders

  • No variation of the order of Marcus Smith J; the Brakes must pay for any hard copy of the trial bundle supplied by the Guy Parties' solicitors.