header-logo header-logo

22 January 2009
Issue: 7353 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil litigation

Forrester Ketley & Co v David Brent [2005] EWCA Civ 562, [2005] All ER (D) 113 (May)

When considering whether or not to grant permission to take a particular step when permission to take that step is required by an extended civil restraint order, it is necessary to assess whether the suggested step has a realistic prospect of success. If it does not, it would normally be right to withhold permission.

 

An exception might be where there is some other reason which appears to the court, when assessing where the interests of justice lie, to be sufficient to justify granting permission. Even where the step has a realistic prospect of success, there might exceptionally be a case where that step would nonetheless be oppressive to the other party, and that might suffice to persuade the court to withhold permission.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll