Haas v Duquemin [2002] JRC 122 (27 June 2002)
The appellant failed to comply with the strict time limits for appealing costs decisions as set out in Rule 15/2 of the Royal Court Rules 1992, and no sufficient justification for extension of time was established. The court refused to grant an extension and awarded costs against the appellant.
- Citation
- [2002] JRC 122
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mrs Haas; Defendant: Mr Duquemin; Defendant's Advocate: Advocate Fiott; Defendant's Advocate: Advocate Grace
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Costs Orders
- Outcome
- application for extension of time refused
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Appeals, Extension of Time, Procedural Compliance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mrs Haas
Plaintiff
Mr Duquemin
Defendant
Advocate Fiott
Defendant's Advocate
Advocate Grace
Defendant's Advocate
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Costs Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to appeal two costs decisions
- 2 Whether procedural time limits for appeals should be strictly enforced
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to comply with the strict time limits for appealing costs decisions as set out in Rule 15/2 of the Royal Court Rules 1992, and no sufficient justification for extension of time was established. The court refused to grant an extension and awarded costs against the appellant.
Court Disposition
application for extension of time refused
Orders
- Extension of time to appeal costs decisions refused
- Costs on a standard basis awarded against the appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment