Oppenheim v Khangura [2001] EWCA Civ 1326 (26 July 2001)

Oppenheim v Khangura [2001] EWCA Civ 1326 (26 July 2001)

The court refused to exercise its power to order payment into court as the sanction would deprive the claimant of defending the appeal, which would not accord with the overriding objective. The court ordered only a fresh disclosure statement under CPR 31(10), not further document production.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1326
Parties
Claimant: John Marcus Oppenheim; Defendant/appellant: Baldev Singh Khangura
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Payment Into Court and Disclosure Pending Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Payment Into Court, Disclosure of Documents, Stay of Execution, Damages Assessment
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Payment Into Court Disclosure of Documents Stay of Execution Damages Assessment

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

Parties

John Marcus Oppenheim

Claimant

Baldev Singh Khangura

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Payment Into Court and Disclosure Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order payment into court of damages awarded pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether further disclosure of documents should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to exercise its power to order payment into court as the sanction would deprive the claimant of defending the appeal, which would not accord with the overriding objective. The court ordered only a fresh disclosure statement under CPR 31(10), not further document production.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Claimant required to provide a fresh disclosure statement under CPR 31(10)