1999/14 - Eves v Le Main [1999] UR 14 (22 January 1999)

1999/14 - Eves v Le Main [1999] UR 14 (22 January 1999)

Leave to appeal was refused because the allegations were prescribed by limitation, the Applicant was aware of the relevant facts at the material times, no concealed fraud or practical impossibility was established, and no substantive grounds were raised to set aside the Royal Court's order. The Royal Court's discretion to proceed in the Applicant's absence was not a denial of justice, and judicial impartiality was not compromised.

Citation
[1999] UR 14
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: David Eves; Defendant/respondent: Terence John Le Main
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Royal Court Order Striking Out Paragraphs of Order of Justice
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Limitation Periods, Leave to Appeal, Prescription, Fresh Evidence, Judicial Impartiality
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Strike Out Applications Limitation Periods Leave to Appeal Prescription Fresh Evidence Judicial Impartiality

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Eves

Plaintiff/appellant

Terence John Le Main

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Royal Court Order Striking Out Paragraphs of Order of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the Royal Court's order striking out paragraphs of the Order of Justice as prescribed by limitation
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court erred in proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Applicant
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence justifies extension of limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the allegations were prescribed by limitation, the Applicant was aware of the relevant facts at the material times, no concealed fraud or practical impossibility was established, and no substantive grounds were raised to set aside the Royal Court's order. The Royal Court's discretion to proceed in the Applicant's absence was not a denial of justice, and judicial impartiality was not compromised.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay taxed costs of the appeal.
  • Indemnity costs not granted.