Tinkler & Anor v Elliott

The respondent did not act with all reasonable celerity in the circumstances; neither his mental health issues nor his status as a litigant in person justified the 18-month delay in applying to set aside the judgment. Promptness is a mandatory requirement under CPR 39.3(5) and was not satisfied. The judge below erred in finding otherwise.

Parties: Appellant: Tinkler & Anr; Respondent: Elliott
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 10 October 2012
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Setting Aside Judgment, Promptness Requirement, Litigants in Person, Civil Restraint Orders

Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgment Promptness Requirement Litigants in Person Civil Restraint Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Tinkler & Anr

Appellant

Elliott

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Application to Set Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent acted promptly in applying to set aside a judgment under CPR 39.3(3) after a delay of 18 months
2 Whether mental health issues and status as a litigant in person justified the delay

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

Order of Sharp J setting aside the judgment and order of Judge Tetlow is reversed; judgment and order of Judge Tetlow are restored.