Bennett v Newsquest (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1149 (19 July 2006)

Bennett v Newsquest (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1149 (19 July 2006)

Permission to appeal is granted because there is an arguable point that the proceedings before Eady J were not fair due to the late provision of material to the claimant, a litigant in person, which may have affected his ability to respond.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1149
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Arthur Bennett; Defendant/respondent: Newsquest (London) Limited (sued as Croydon Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Permission to Appeal Granted
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Extension of Limitation Period, Fairness of Proceedings, Privilege in Defamation
Civil Procedure Defamation Summary Judgment Extension of Limitation Period Fairness of Proceedings Privilege in Defamation

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

Parties

Arthur Bennett

Claimant/appellant

Newsquest (London) Limited (sued as Croydon Guardian)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Permission to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings before Eady J were fair given the late provision of material to the litigant in person
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success in appealing the summary judgment and refusal to extend the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted because there is an arguable point that the proceedings before Eady J were not fair due to the late provision of material to the claimant, a litigant in person, which may have affected his ability to respond.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application granted
  • Case to be listed for two and-a-half hours before three judges, including one with defamation expertise