header-logo header-logo

Civil litigation

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

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

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll