Judgment
Phillip Hinds v Conyers Dill and Pearman (A Firm) - Judgment
[2019] CIGC (Civil) 8
· G 0065/2018 · 2019-08-14
Civil Practice and Procedure; Striking Out; Order 18, Rule 19(1) of the GCR; whether claim an abuse of process; whether frivolous or vexatious; whether collateral attack on judgment; whether manifest unfairness to party to litigation; whether claim would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; Abuse of Process; Collateral Attack on Prior Judgment; Frivolous or Vexatious Claims; Professional Negligence; Limitation; Laches and Acquiescence; Finality of Litigation
Full metadata
| Neutral Citation | [2019] CIGC (Civil) 8 |
|---|---|
| Cause Number | G 0065/2018 |
| Court | CIGC (Civ) |
| Judge | Mangatal J |
| Parties | Phillip Hinds v Conyers Dill and Pearman (A Firm) - Judgment |
| Judgment Date | 2019-08-14 |
| Subject | Civil Practice and Procedure; Striking Out; Order 18, Rule 19(1) of the GCR; whether claim an abuse of process; whether frivolous or vexatious; whether collateral attack on judgment; whether manifest unfairness to party to litigation; whether claim would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; Abuse of Process; Collateral Attack on Prior Judgment; Frivolous or Vexatious Claims; Professional Negligence; Limitation; Laches and Acquiescence; Finality of Litigation |
| Filename (current) | 19-08-14_phillip_hinds_v_conyers_dill_and_pearman_a_firm.pdf |
Legislation cited
| Statute | Sections cited | Mentions |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation Act | — | 6 |
| Evidence Act | 52 and 54 | 1 |
| Grand Court Rules - Vol I - Orders (subordinate) | — | 1 |
The full text of this document is available to readers on this page. It is not served to automated crawlers.