Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Wiltshire v Powell & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 626 (07 May 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/626.html
Cite as: [2004] EWCA Civ 626
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LINCOLN COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER MAW)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN
____________________
| TIMOTHY WILTSHIRE | Appellant/Claimant | |
| -v- | ||
| MICHAEL POWELL | ||
| (2) PAUL ETHERINGTON | ||
| (3) DEREK HEAPY | ||
| (4) PETER STOREY | Respondents/Defendants |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR JEREMY JANES (instructed by Jones & Co., Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: The unsuccessful appellant resists the application by the second, third and fourth respondents for their costs on the basis that they could be said to have stood by whilst the original action proceeded without taking part or asking to take part and that accordingly in reality the only successful party today is Mr Powell.
- In our judgment that overlooks one of the major aspects of our judgments which was that it was essentially Mr Wiltshire's own action in failing to bring before the court all the relevant parties on the first occasion that gave rise to the second action and in those circumstances we do not consider that the complaint made against the second, third and fourth respondents is one which justifies any other order than the usual order for costs on an unsuccessful appeal.
- So far as the application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords is concerned, we refuse that application. If their Lordships consider it is a matter that interests them then Mr Keith may find greater success there.