Lakatamia v SU

Lakatamia v SU

The delay in filing the appeal notice was serious and significant, and the reasons advanced (lack of legal representation and inability to pay the court fee) were not sufficient to justify an extension of time. The merits of the appeal were extremely weak, and thus the application for extension of time was refused.

Parties
Respondent: Lakatamia; Applicant: Su
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Committal Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Committal for Contempt, Freezing Orders, Disclosure of Assets, Jurisdictional Restrictions
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Extension of Time Committal for Contempt Freezing Orders Disclosure of Assets Jurisdictional Restrictions

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

Parties

Lakatamia

Respondent

Su

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal against a committal order
  2. 2 Whether the reasons for delay in filing the appeal notice are sufficient
  3. 3 Whether the merits of the appeal justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in filing the appeal notice was serious and significant, and the reasons advanced (lack of legal representation and inability to pay the court fee) were not sufficient to justify an extension of time. The merits of the appeal were extremely weak, and thus the application for extension of time was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal is not granted