Lemas & Anor v Williams

Lemas & Anor v Williams

The appeal was refused because the trial judge's finding that the house was not subject to the trust was open to him on the evidence and was fatal to the appellants' case. There was no procedural irregularity or unfairness justifying a re-trial. Mr Sealy's application was procedurally improper and, in any event, barred by delay.

Parties
Appellant: Roderick Lemas; Appellant: George Sealy; Respondent: Winston Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Extension of Time) From a Possession Order and Costs Order of Bow County Court
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused; orders of the lower court stand.
Legal Topics
Trusts—validity and Constitution, Possession Proceedings, Service of Process, Litigants in Person—fair Trial, Extension of Time for Appeal
Property Law Civil Procedure Trusts—validity and Constitution Possession Proceedings Service of Process Litigants in Person—fair Trial Extension of Time for Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roderick Lemas

Appellant

George Sealy

Appellant

Winston Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Extension of Time) From a Possession Order and Costs Order of Bow County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the house was not subject to a trust in favour of the Lemas children
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularities or lack of representation justified a re-trial
  3. 3 Whether Mr Sealy was properly served and entitled to set aside the possession and costs orders against him

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the trial judge's finding that the house was not subject to the trust was open to him on the evidence and was fatal to the appellants' case. There was no procedural irregularity or unfairness justifying a re-trial. Mr Sealy's application was procedurally improper and, in any event, barred by delay.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused; orders of the lower court stand.