Harvey v Gaskin & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 353 (09 March 2006)
The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds, was incomprehensible, and amounted to an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate matters already determined. The civil restraint order was justified due to persistent meritless litigation. The summary assessment of costs was appropriate given the scale of litigation.
- Citation
- [2006] EWCA Civ 353
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Jeffrey Allan Harvey; Defendant/respondent: Jennifer Gaskin; Defendant/respondent: Richard Shaw
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Claim, Civil Restraint Order, Malicious Falsehood, Libel, Abuse of Process, Costs Assessment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jeffrey Allan Harvey
Claimant/appellant
Jennifer Gaskin
Defendant/respondent
Richard Shaw
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim disclosed any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim (libel/malicious falsehood)
- 2 Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process
- 3 Whether a civil restraint order was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds, was incomprehensible, and amounted to an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate matters already determined. The civil restraint order was justified due to persistent meritless litigation. The summary assessment of costs was appropriate given the scale of litigation.
Court Disposition
application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused against striking out of claim
- Permission to appeal refused against civil restraint order
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