London Borough Of Southwark v Kaikai [2002] EWCA Civ 432 (19 March 2002)
The application for permission to appeal does not meet the requirements of CPR 52.13 as it does not raise an important point of principle or practice nor any other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 432
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark; Defendant/applicant: Emmanuel Kaikai
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
- Outcome
- application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Possession Proceedings, Rent Arrears, Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Second Appeals
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark
Claimant/respondent
Emmanuel Kaikai
Defendant/applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for permission to appeal meets the requirements of CPR 52.13 for a second appeal
- 2 Whether there is an important point of principle or practice or other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case
Ratio Decidendi
The application for permission to appeal does not meet the requirements of CPR 52.13 as it does not raise an important point of principle or practice nor any other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case.
Court Disposition
application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- application refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment