Phillips & Ors v Symes & Ors

Phillips & Ors v Symes & Ors

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Mr Symes was able to manage his affairs, participate in litigation, give evidence, and be cross-examined; the medical evidence relied upon by the applicants was flawed, unsupported, and contradicted by lay and professional evidence. Therefore, Mr Symes was not a patient within CPR 21, was not incapable by reason of mental disorder from participating in proceedings or giving evidence, and was not so affected during the hearing commencing 30 April 2003.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Guy Anthony Phillips; Claimant: Robert Andrew Harland; Claimant: Despina Papadimitriou; Defendant: Robin James Symes; Defendant: Robin Symes Limited; Defendant: Jean-Louis Domercq; Defendant: Frieda Nussberger; Defendant: Philos Partners Inc.; Defendant: Geoff Rowley; Defendant: Kevin Hellard; Respondent: Langshaw Kyriacou; Respondent: Baker & Mckenzie; Respondent: Lovells; Respondent: Peters & Peters; Respondent: Bracher Rawlins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Determination of Mental Capacity Issues
Outcome
Issues determined against Mr Symes; he was found capable of managing affairs, participating in litigation, and giving evidence.
Legal Topics
CPR Part 21, Capacity to Litigate, Contempt of Court, Warranty of Authority, Court of Protection, Cross Examination, Affidavit Evidence
Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Partnership Law Bankruptcy CPR Part 21 Capacity to Litigate Contempt of Court Warranty of Authority +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Guy Anthony Phillips

Claimant

Robert Andrew Harland

Claimant

Despina Papadimitriou

Claimant

Robin James Symes

Defendant

Robin Symes Limited

Defendant

Jean-Louis Domercq

Defendant

Frieda Nussberger

Defendant

Philos Partners Inc.

Defendant

Geoff Rowley

Defendant

Kevin Hellard

Defendant

Langshaw Kyriacou

Respondent

Baker & Mckenzie

Respondent

Lovells

Respondent

Peters & Peters

Respondent

Bracher Rawlins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Determination of Mental Capacity Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Symes was a patient within CPR 21 after 27 February 2001
  2. 2 Whether Mr Symes was incapable by reason of mental disorder from fairly participating in proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Mr Symes was unable to give evidence orally or in writing and/or be cross-examined

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Mr Symes was able to manage his affairs, participate in litigation, give evidence, and be cross-examined; the medical evidence relied upon by the applicants was flawed, unsupported, and contradicted by lay and professional evidence. Therefore, Mr Symes was not a patient within CPR 21, was not incapable by reason of mental disorder from participating in proceedings or giving evidence, and was not so affected during the hearing commencing 30 April 2003.

Court Disposition

Issues determined against Mr Symes; he was found capable of managing affairs, participating in litigation, and giving evidence.

Orders

  • The adjourned hearing may proceed; Mr Symes is to be treated as capable of giving evidence and being cross-examined.
  • Reasonable breaks and fair questioning to be ensured during future hearings.