In the matter of II [2018] JCA 060 (19 March 2018)

In the matter of II [2018] JCA 060 (19 March 2018)

The plaintiffs failed to provide any substantive grounds for appeal or satisfactory explanation for delay; listening to the hearing recording was not a necessary precondition for articulating grounds. Further delay would prejudice both parties and justice. No extension should be granted.

Citation
[2018] JCA 060
Parties
Plaintiff: A; Second Plaintiff: K; Third Plaintiff: L; First Defendant: H; Second Party Cited: John Bisson and others (practicing under the name and style of Appleby)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Post Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Judgments, Striking Out Pleadings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Plaintiff

K

Second Plaintiff

L

Third Plaintiff

H

First Defendant

John Bisson and others (practicing under the name and style of Appleby)

Second Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Post Interlocutory Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to provide any substantive grounds for appeal or satisfactory explanation for delay; listening to the hearing recording was not a necessary precondition for articulating grounds. Further delay would prejudice both parties and justice. No extension should be granted.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No extension of time granted for applying for leave to appeal