Chisese v Eze

Chisese v Eze

There was no binding oral agreement and the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, with no proper basis for extension; the appendices relied upon by the applicant did not alter the factual or legal assessment.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Victor Chisese; Defendant/respondent: Prince Arthur Eze
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Limitation Period, Extension of Time, Mistake, Fraud
Contract Law Civil Procedure Oral Agreement Limitation Period Extension of Time Mistake Fraud

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Chisese

Claimant/applicant

Prince Arthur Eze

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding oral agreement between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the claim was brought within the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether there was a proper basis for extension of time under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding oral agreement and the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, with no proper basis for extension; the appendices relied upon by the applicant did not alter the factual or legal assessment.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • permission to appeal refused