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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll