Gentoo Group Ltd (Formerly Known As Sunderland Housing Company Ltd) & Anor v Hanratty
The criteria under s.69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 are fulfilled; the trial requires prolonged and careful examination of a large volume of documents, which cannot be conveniently carried out with a jury. Judicial discretion does not warrant a jury trial in this case.
- Parties
- Claimant: Gentoo Group Limited; Claimant: Peter Walls; Defendant: Stephen Hanratty
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 08 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Pre Trial Review
- Outcome
- Trial to be conducted by judge alone.
- Legal Topics
- Mode of Trial, Jury Trial, Prolonged Examination of Documents, Judicial Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gentoo Group Limited
Claimant
Peter Walls
Claimant
Stephen Hanratty
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial should be by judge alone or by jury under s.69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
- 2 Whether prolonged examination of documents is required
- 3 Whether such examination can be conveniently carried out with a jury
Ratio Decidendi
The criteria under s.69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 are fulfilled; the trial requires prolonged and careful examination of a large volume of documents, which cannot be conveniently carried out with a jury. Judicial discretion does not warrant a jury trial in this case.
Court Disposition
Trial to be conducted by judge alone.
Orders
- Case to be tried by judge alone for both defamation and harassment claims.
- Defendant to provide further handwriting samples for expert analysis.
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