Cavan v Bunting [2025] NICA 12 (27 January 2025)

Cavan v Bunting [2025] NICA 12 (27 January 2025)

The case stated was fundamentally deficient, lacking clear findings of material fact, proper formulation of legal issues, and adequate Article 10 analysis. The Court of Appeal could not adjudicate the substantive questions due to these procedural defects. The appropriate remedy was to remit the case for a new, properly formulated case stated, not to dismiss for want of prosecution despite the unacceptable delay.

Citation
[2025] NICA 12
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Matthew Cavan; Defendant/appellant: Jolene Bunting
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Case Stated From County Court (belfast) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Procedural and Substantive Adequacy of Case Stated
Outcome
Remitted to County Court for new case stated; not dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment, Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Case Stated Procedure, Delay in Prosecution, Judicial Findings of Fact
Civil Procedure Injunctions Human Rights Protection From Harassment Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Case Stated Procedure Delay in Prosecution Judicial Findings of Fact

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Cavan

Plaintiff/respondent

Jolene Bunting

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Case Stated From County Court (belfast) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Procedural and Substantive Adequacy of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case stated by the County Court judge was procedurally and substantively adequate for appellate review
  2. 2 Whether the County Court judge correctly applied the legal test for 'oppressive and unreasonable' conduct under harassment law
  3. 3 Whether the County Court judge properly considered and balanced Article 10 ECHR rights in granting injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The case stated was fundamentally deficient, lacking clear findings of material fact, proper formulation of legal issues, and adequate Article 10 analysis. The Court of Appeal could not adjudicate the substantive questions due to these procedural defects. The appropriate remedy was to remit the case for a new, properly formulated case stated, not to dismiss for want of prosecution despite the unacceptable delay.

Court Disposition

Remitted to County Court for new case stated; not dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • Case remitted to deputy judge to formulate a new case stated, guided by this judgment, under s 38(1)(b), (c), and (f) of the Judicature (NI) Act 1978
  • Appellant to provide new draft case stated within 14 days of final order; respondent to reply within 14 days; deputy judge to finalize within further 14 days