||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 168 (Jun)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Mummery, Dyson and Maurice Kay LJJ
||Emily Campbell (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the claimant.
||Adam Smith (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the defendant.
||13 June 2008
Executor and administrator - Dealings with assets of estate - Possession - Action for possession against executrix's severely mentally disabled brother - Brother and litigant in person failing to comply with consent order - Judge making order for possession and striking out defence and counterclaim - Application to suspend possession order refused - Whether judge erring.
Where the claimant commenced possession proceedings against her severely mentally disabled brother and where in the light of the fact that the defendant had failed to comply with a consent order, the judge had made an order for possession and struck out his defence and counterclaim, the evidence did not indicate that by reason of his mental disability the defendant was unable to comply with the provisions of the consent order. Accordingly, the judge had exercised his discretion lawfully and had been correct in refusing to suspend the possession order.
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports