0370 270 6000

Hunt v Peasegood, Court of Appeal, 13 October 2000

27 October 2000
The issues

Setting aside permisssion to appeal by C.A.

The facts

The Applicant applied to set aside the permission granted by Lord Justice Aldous to the Claimant to appeal against orders of the High Court Judge setting aside a statutory demand and quashing a bankruptcy order against the Defendant.

The decision

The Court was concerned only with whether there was a compelling reason to set aside the permission that had been granted. In considering whether there was such a reason the Court had to bear in mind the overriding objective and the purpose of the requirement that there had to be permission to appeal. The request for permission did not require analysis of the grounds of the proposed appeal. The Court had to decide only if there was a real prospect of success. If so, permission would be granted. If not, it would be refused.


Consideration should still be given to the Iran Nabuvat Times June 22nd 1990 and Smith v Cosworth 4 All ER 1997.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up