Ronald Albert Popely v Ayton Limited & Anor

Ronald Albert Popely v Ayton Limited & Anor

The trial judge's findings against Mr Popely, a non-party, were made without notice or opportunity to respond, breaching his rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and common law procedural fairness. The process was intrinsically unfair, and the findings must be set aside. The related order joining Mr Popely for a non-party costs application, based on those findings, must also be set aside. A retrial is not proportionate; setting aside the findings and orders is the appropriate remedy.

Parties
Appellant: Ronald Albert Popely; First Respondent: Ayton Limited; Second Respondent: Alan Mosley (acting by the Official Receiver as his Trustee in Bankruptcy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Non Party Costs, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Recusal of Judge, Judicial Bias
Civil Procedure Human Rights Procedural Fairness Non Party Costs Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Recusal of Judge Judicial Bias

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Albert Popely

Appellant

Ayton Limited

First Respondent

Alan Mosley (acting by the Official Receiver as his Trustee in Bankruptcy)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's adverse findings against a non-party (Mr Popely) were made in breach of procedural fairness and ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the process adopted justified setting aside findings and related orders
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have recused himself from hearing the non-party costs application

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings against Mr Popely, a non-party, were made without notice or opportunity to respond, breaching his rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and common law procedural fairness. The process was intrinsically unfair, and the findings must be set aside. The related order joining Mr Popely for a non-party costs application, based on those findings, must also be set aside. A retrial is not proportionate; setting aside the findings and orders is the appropriate remedy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The adverse findings against Mr Popely in the Main Judgment are set aside and treated as if never made.
  • The order joining Mr Popely to the proceedings for the purposes of the non-party costs application is set aside; the non-party costs application is dismissed as against him.