Lewis v Lewis

Lewis v Lewis

The trial judge was entitled to revisit and determine the issue of capacity based on oral evidence from an expert, and was correct in concluding that Peter Lewis had capacity to conduct proceedings. The statutory presumption of capacity was not displaced. The absence of a litigation friend did not render the proceedings unfair, especially given the special measures taken to accommodate Peter's disability. The application for permission to appeal was out of time and had no real prospect of success.

Parties
Respondent: David Lewis; Appellant: Peter Lewis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Litigation Friend, Capacity to Litigate, Reasonable Adjustments for Disability
Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Litigation Friend Capacity to Litigate Reasonable Adjustments for Disability

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Lewis

Respondent

Peter Lewis

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting proceedings to continue without a litigation friend for Peter Lewis
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted to determine Peter Lewis's capacity was lawful
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a litigation friend rendered the proceedings unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to revisit and determine the issue of capacity based on oral evidence from an expert, and was correct in concluding that Peter Lewis had capacity to conduct proceedings. The statutory presumption of capacity was not displaced. The absence of a litigation friend did not render the proceedings unfair, especially given the special measures taken to accommodate Peter's disability. The application for permission to appeal was out of time and had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused