CPR Dictionary

https://www.michaeldariuseastwood.com/legal/cpr-dictionary

CPR Dictionary

Every CPR rule, statute, practice direction, and case law authority cited anywhere on this portal. Unlike the glossary (which explains abbreviations), this is a full legal dictionary showing the actual rule text, official source, and how each authority applies to this case.

18CPR Rules

6Practice Directions

18Statutes

28Case Law

CPR Rules 18

CPR 1.1 Verified

Official Source ↗

The Overriding Objective

The rules are a procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This includes ensuring the parties are on an equal footing, saving expense, dealing with cases proportionately, and ensuring cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly.

Application to this case: The foundation of all civil litigation. The Applicant contends that the systematic refusal of reasonable adjustments and the 29:0 decision ratio demonstrate a failure to deal with this case justly.

CPR 1.4 Verified

Official Source ↗

Court's Duty to Manage Cases

The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases. CPR 1.4(2) lists the duties including identifying issues early, deciding promptly which issues need investigation, and encouraging cooperation.

Application to this case: The lower courts failed to actively manage the case by allowing 540+ days of default without entering mandatory judgment.

CPR 3.1 Verified

Official Source ↗

The Court's General Powers of Management

CPR 3.1(2)(m) provides the court may take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective. CPR 3.1(7) provides the power to vary or revoke any order.

Application to this case: G1: The Applicant relies on CPR 3.1(7) for variation of orders that are void due to MHCM. Tibbles v SIG [2012] establishes the limits of this power.

Ground A

CPR 3.3 Verified

Official Source ↗

Court's Power to Make Order on its Own Initiative

CPR 3.3(2): The court may make an order on its own initiative without a hearing. CPR 3.3(5): Where a court makes an order without a hearing, a party affected may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed. CPR 3.3(6): Such application must be made within 7 days of service.

Application to this case: G1, G6: Multiple orders were made ex parte without a hearing. The Applicant was denied opportunity to respond before adverse orders were sealed.

Ground A Ground B

CPR 3.10 Verified

Official Source ↗

General Power to Rectify Where There Has Been an Error of Procedure

Where there has been an error of procedure such as a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction, the error does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings unless the court so orders. The court may make an order to remedy the error.

Application to this case: CPR 3.10 cannot cure jurisdictional voids. An order made during MHCM is not a procedural irregularity but a statutory nullity.

CPR 12.3 Verified

Official Source ↗

Conditions for Obtaining Default Judgment

CPR 12.3(1): The claimant may obtain default judgment if the defendant has not filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence to the claim (or any part of the claim). The word 'may' confers an entitlement, not a discretion (Messih v McMillan Williams [2010]).

Application to this case: G3, G10: R1 has been in default for 540+ days. No defence has been filed. Default judgment is mandatory under CPR 12.3(1) and was improperly withheld.

Ground C Ground J

CPR 15.2 Verified

Official Source ↗

Filing a Defence

A defendant who wishes to defend all or part of a claim must file a defence.

Application to this case: R1 has failed to comply with CPR 15.2. No defence has been filed within the time prescribed or at all.

CPR 15.4 Verified

Official Source ↗

Time for Filing a Defence

The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is 14 days after service of the particulars of claim, or 28 days if an acknowledgment of service is filed.

Application to this case: The 14-day (or 28-day) deadline expired over 540 days ago. No extension was sought or granted.

CPR 17.4 Verified

Official Source ↗

Amendments to Statements of Case After Expiry of Limitation Period

The court may allow an amendment whose effect will be to add or substitute a new claim, but only if the new claim arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a claim already in the proceedings.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Applicant's application to amend particulars of claim following discovery of additional void orders.

CPR 23.7 Verified

Official Source ↗

Service of a Copy of an Application Notice

A copy of the application notice must be served on each respondent as soon as practicable after it is filed, and in any event at least 3 clear days before the court is to deal with the application.

Application to this case: Multiple orders were made without the Applicant being served with the application notices. This is a fundamental procedural defect.

CPR 23.10 Verified

Official Source ↗

Application to Set Aside or Vary Order Made Without Notice

Where the court makes an order without notice to the person against whom it is made, that person has the right to apply to set aside or vary the order.

Application to this case: The Applicant was denied this right in practice by the TWM certifications and the LCRO imposed after the complaint.

CPR 24.4 Verified

Official Source ↗

Procedure for Summary Judgment

A court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if it considers that the claimant/defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue.

Application to this case: G10: The Applicant contends that summary judgment should be entered in his favour given the Defendant's admissions and 540+ day default.

CPR 30.3 Verified

Official Source ↗

Transfer Between Courts

CPR 30.3(2)(g): The court may order proceedings to be transferred to another court. A transfer requires the court to have jurisdiction over the claim at the time of the order.

Application to this case: G1: The transfer of BL-2024-001166 was made before service, when the court had no jurisdiction (Fourie v Le Roux). This renders the transfer void.

CPR 39.2 Verified

Official Source ↗

General Rule: Hearing to be in Public

The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public. The court may order a hearing, or part of it, to be in private only in specified circumstances.

Application to this case: Relevant to the open justice principle. Multiple hearings in this case were conducted without proper notice or public access.

CPR 40.2 Verified

Official Source ↗

Standard Requirements of Judgments and Orders

Every judgment or order must state the name and judicial title of the person who made it, and must be sealed by the court.

Application to this case: Several orders in this case do not match the pronouncements made at the hearing. The sealed orders contain terms not ordered by the judge.

CPR 40.12 Verified

Official Source ↗

Correction of Errors (The Slip Rule)

The court may at any time correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment, order, or any document produced by the court. Clerical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions may be corrected.

Application to this case: G6: Cannot be used to introduce substantive changes. Sealed orders in this case contained terms beyond what was pronounced, going beyond any 'slip'.

CPR 44.2 Verified

Official Source ↗

Court's Discretion as to Costs

The court has discretion as to whether costs are payable by one party to another, the amount of those costs, and when they are to be paid. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party.

Application to this case: G7: The indemnity costs order was disproportionate and unwarranted by the Claimant's conduct, particularly given that R1 was in default throughout.

Ground G

CPR 52.3 Verified

Official Source ↗

Permission to Appeal

An appellant or respondent requires permission to appeal. Permission to appeal may be given only where the court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

Application to this case: The Applicant contends there is both a real prospect of success (void orders cannot stand) and a compelling reason (Article 6 violations, systemic discrimination).

Practice Directions 6

Practice Direction 1A Verified

Official Source ↗

Participation of Vulnerable Parties or Witnesses

The court must consider whether a party's participation is likely to be diminished by reason of vulnerability and, if so, whether it is necessary to make directions to assist the party. This includes parties with disabilities such as ADHD and ASD.

Application to this case: G4, G11: 12 requests for PD 1A reasonable adjustments were made. Zero were granted. Across 10+ judges and 6 courts. The Applicant has ADHD and ASD confirmed by clinical diagnosis (Dr Woolley, HMCTS RA Ref 67862925).

Ground D Ground K

Practice Direction 3C Verified

Official Source ↗

Civil Restraint Orders

A limited civil restraint order may be made where a party has made 2 or more applications which are totally without merit. An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit.

Application to this case: G9: The LCRO was imposed 7 days after a formal complaint about the same judge. The Applicant contends this is void (made during MHCM) and tainted by apparent bias.

Ground I

Practice Direction 5C Verified

Official Source ↗

Electronic Working

Guidance on filing documents electronically. Sets out the requirements for electronic filing and the courts that accept electronic filing.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Applicant's filing difficulties. 6 EX107 forms were submitted to the Rolls Building. All were ignored.

Practice Direction 32 Verified

Official Source ↗

Evidence

Provides guidance on the form and content of witness statements and affidavits. Witness statements must comply with the requirements as to form, content, and signature.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Applicant's witness statement and the standard of evidence required for the appeal.

Practice Direction 40B Verified

Official Source ↗

Judgments and Orders

Sets out the form and content of judgments and orders. Orders must be drawn up by the court unless the court orders a party to do so.

Application to this case: G6: Several orders were drafted unilaterally by the Defendant's solicitors without the Applicant's input, and contained terms not pronounced by the judge.

Practice Direction 52A Verified

Official Source ↗

Appeals: General Provisions

Sets out the general provisions for appeals, including routes of appeal, permission requirements, and time limits for filing appellant's notices.

Application to this case: Governs the current appeal proceedings under CA-2024-001353.

Statutes 18

Debt Respite Scheme Regulations 2020 (Reg 7(12)) Verified

Official Source ↗

Prohibition on Enforcement During Mental Health Crisis Moratorium

Regulation 7(12): A creditor must not take any of the steps listed in paragraph (3) during a moratorium period. Any enforcement action taken during the moratorium is void. The regulations provide absolute statutory protection; there is no judicial discretion to override them.

Application to this case: G1, G8: The central authority. 9+ court orders were made during the MHCM period. All are void ab initio. The court had actual knowledge of the MHCM on 29.12.24 via official notification.

Ground A Ground H

Insolvency Act 1986 s.127 Verified

Official Source ↗

Avoidance of Property Dispositions After Winding-Up Petition

In a winding up by the court, any disposition of the company's property made after the commencement of the winding up is, unless the court otherwise orders, void.

Application to this case: Relevant to the insolvency proceedings (CR-2024-000527) and the status of dispositions made during the void winding-up order.

Insolvency Act 1986 s.130(2) Verified

Official Source ↗

Consequences of Winding-Up Order: Stay of Proceedings

When a winding-up order has been made, no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court.

Application to this case: The winding-up order itself is void (made during MHCM). Therefore s.130(2) was never validly engaged. Proceedings should never have been stayed.

Insolvency Act 1986 s.133 Verified

Official Source ↗

Public Examination of Officers

Where the court has made a winding-up order, the official receiver may apply to the court for the public examination of any person who is or has been an officer of the company.

Application to this case: Relevant to the insolvency proceedings. The official receiver's powers depend on a valid winding-up order, which the Applicant contends is void.

Insolvency Act 1986 s.134(2) Verified

Official Source ↗

Conduct of Examination

Provisions governing the conduct of public examinations under the Insolvency Act.

Application to this case: If the winding-up order is void, examination under s.134 is without jurisdiction.

Insolvency Act 1986 s.290 Verified

Official Source ↗

Public Examination of Bankrupt

Where a bankruptcy order has been made, the official receiver may apply to the court for the public examination of the bankrupt.

Application to this case: Relevant to the outstanding arrest warrant. The Applicant contends the underlying bankruptcy proceedings are void.

Insolvency Act 1986 s.364 Verified

Official Source ↗

Power of Arrest (Absconding Bankrupt)

The court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a debtor where it appears that the debtor has absconded, or is about to abscond, with a view to avoiding his obligations.

Application to this case: An arrest warrant was issued under this provision. The Applicant contends it was issued by a court without jurisdiction (void winding-up order) and violates Article 5 ECHR.

Equality Act 2010 s.6 Verified

Official Source ↗

Definition of Disability

A person has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. ADHD and ASD are qualifying conditions.

Application to this case: G4, G11: The Applicant has ADHD and ASD, confirmed by clinical diagnosis. He is a disabled person within the meaning of EA 2010 s.6.

Ground D Ground K

Equality Act 2010 s.20 Verified

Official Source ↗

Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments

Where a provision, criterion or practice of a service provider puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter, the service provider must take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

Application to this case: G4: HMCTS is a service provider. 12 requests for reasonable adjustments were made. Zero were granted. This is a breach of the duty under s.20.

Ground D Ground K

Equality Act 2010 s.29 Verified

Official Source ↗

Provision of Services

A person concerned with the provision of a service to the public must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person requiring the service.

Application to this case: HMCTS provides a public service. The systematic refusal of adjustments constitutes discrimination in the provision of that service.

Equality Act 2010 s.149 Verified

Official Source ↗

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) eliminate discrimination; (b) advance equality of opportunity; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not.

Application to this case: G4, G11: The courts, as public authorities, failed to have due regard to the Applicant's disability. No equality impact assessment was conducted before imposing the LCRO or costs orders.

Ground D Ground K

Housing Act 1988 Verified

Official Source ↗

Assured and Assured Shorthold Tenancies

The primary legislation governing residential tenancies in England and Wales. Creates the framework of assured and assured shorthold tenancies.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Chelsea Harbour tenancy dispute and the status of the lease.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Verified

Official Source ↗

Civil and Criminal Liability for Harassment

Section 1: A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment. Section 3: An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a civil claim.

Application to this case: The Defence admits 6 lockouts, 2 of which occurred after the Claimant explicitly warned R1 that the conduct was criminal. This constitutes a course of conduct under PHA 1997.

Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 Verified

Official Source ↗

Conversion and Wrongful Interference with Goods

Provides remedies for wrongful interference with goods, including conversion (treating someone's property as your own). Section 3 provides for damages based on the value of the goods.

Application to this case: The Defendant's own Defence admits the Applicant's chattels were sold for just £1,100. The goods were valued at significantly more. This constitutes conversion.

Data Protection Act 2018 Verified

Official Source ↗

UK GDPR Implementation

Implements the UK GDPR framework. Governs the processing of personal data and provides rights for data subjects.

Application to this case: Relevant to the handling of the Applicant's personal data by the Defendants and HMCTS.

Senior Courts Act 1981 s.37 Verified

Official Source ↗

Powers of High Court with Respect to Injunctions

The High Court may by order grant an injunction in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.

Application to this case: Relevant to the injunction proceedings (KB-2024-001508) and the Applicant's applications for injunctive relief.

Article 5 ECHR Verified

Official Source ↗

Right to Liberty and Security

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

Application to this case: The arrest warrant issued under the void winding-up order deprives the Applicant of liberty without lawful basis. A warrant from a court without jurisdiction violates Article 5.

Article 6 ECHR Verified

Official Source ↗

Right to a Fair Trial

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Application to this case: G11: The cumulative effect of 29:0 decisions, refusal of adjustments, ex parte orders, and post-complaint retaliation violates the right to a fair trial.

Ground K

Case Law 28

MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd [1962] AC 152 Verified

Official Source ↗

Derivative Nullity: Nothing on Nothing

'You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.' A void act cannot found any subsequent act. If the root order is void, every order derived from it is also void.

Application to this case: G1: The foundational principle. If the MHCM orders are void, then every subsequent order depending on them (transfers, stays, costs, LCRO) is also void. This creates the cascade of nullities across all 6 proceedings.

Ground A

Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 Verified

Official Source ↗

Apparent Bias Test

'Whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.'

Application to this case: G2: Applied to the 7-day nexus between the formal complaint (20.02.2025) and the adverse orders including the LCRO (27.02.2025). The fair-minded observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias.

Ground B

Lees v Kaye [2022] EWHC 1151 (QB) Verified

Official Source ↗

Statutory Nullity of MHCM Violations

'The court has no discretion. The statute says the action is void.' Enforcement action taken during a Mental Health Crisis Moratorium is void ab initio regardless of the merits.

Application to this case: G1, G8: Directly in point. The court had actual knowledge of the MHCM and nevertheless made enforcement orders. Lees confirms these are void by operation of statute.

Ground A Ground H

Kaye v Lees [2023] EWHC 758 (KB) Verified

Official Source ↗

MHCM: Subsequent Proceedings

The sequel to Lees v Kaye, addressing the consequences of orders made during MHCM and the appropriate procedural response.

Application to this case: G1: Further authority confirming the absolute nature of MHCM protection and the consequences for orders made during the moratorium.

Ground A

Messih v McMillan Williams [2010] EWCA Civ 844 Verified

Official Source ↗

Default Judgment: Entitlement Not Discretion

'The word "may" in CPR 12.3 confers an entitlement, not a discretion.' Where the conditions in CPR 12.3 are met, the claimant has a right to default judgment.

Application to this case: G3: R1 has filed no defence in 540+ days. Under Messih, the Applicant has an entitlement to default judgment, not merely a hope that the court might exercise discretion.

Ground C

Axnoller Events v Brake [2021] EWHC 2308 (Ch) Verified

Official Source ↗

Void Orders and Procedural Consequences

Authority on the consequences of void orders and the procedural steps available when fundamental jurisdictional defects are identified.

Application to this case: Supports the proposition that void orders must be treated as having no legal effect regardless of subsequent events.

Billington v Davies [2016] EWHC 1919 (Ch) Verified

Official Source ↗

Void Orders: No Estoppel

A void order cannot give rise to estoppel or res judicata. The parties cannot be bound by an order that was never valid.

Application to this case: G1: Even if R1 relied on the void orders, there is no estoppel. The Defendant cannot profit from orders that were legally null.

Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 Verified

Official Source ↗

Relief from Sanctions: Three-Stage Test

The leading authority on relief from sanctions. The three-stage test: (1) identify the seriousness and significance of the breach; (2) consider why the default occurred; (3) evaluate all the circumstances of the case.

Application to this case: Relevant to the unless order. The Applicant contends that the Denton test was not properly applied before strike-out, particularly given the MHCM and disability.

Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661 Verified

Official Source ↗

Costs and Proportionality

Authority on proportionate costs and the court's approach to indemnity costs orders.

Application to this case: G7: Supports the Applicant's argument that indemnity costs were disproportionate given the circumstances.

Strachan v Gleaner [2005] UKPC 33 Verified

Official Source ↗

Judicial Bias and Recusal

Authority on the circumstances in which a judge should recuse themselves for apparent bias.

Application to this case: G2: Supports the argument that the judge who imposed the LCRO should have recused herself given the formal complaint filed 7 days earlier.

Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3 Verified

Official Source ↗

Procedural Fairness in Civil Proceedings

Recent Supreme Court authority on procedural fairness and the court's obligations to ensure a fair hearing.

Application to this case: G11: Reinforces the Article 6 requirement for procedural fairness, particularly relevant given the cumulative unfairness in these proceedings.

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 Verified

Official Source ↗

Access to Justice as a Constitutional Right

The Supreme Court held that access to justice is a constitutional right that cannot be undermined by fees or procedural barriers. The right of access to the courts is not a privilege to be granted at the discretion of the executive.

Application to this case: G4, G11: The systematic refusal of adjustments and the LCRO effectively deny the Applicant access to justice in violation of this constitutional principle.

Scott v Scott [1913] UKHL 1 Verified

Official Source ↗

Open Justice Principle

The foundational authority on the open justice principle. Justice must be done in public unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

Application to this case: The publication of this portal is an exercise of the open justice principle. All proceedings referenced are matters of public record.

Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 Verified

Official Source ↗

Closed Material Procedures and Open Justice

The Supreme Court confirmed that a fair trial ordinarily requires open justice. Departure from this principle requires clear statutory authority.

Application to this case: Reinforces the Applicant's right to publish evidence and argue his case publicly.

Galo v Bombardier [2016] NICA 25 Verified

Official Source ↗

Disability Discrimination and Reasonable Adjustments

Authority on the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons in legal proceedings.

Application to this case: G4: Supports the proposition that failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled litigant can render proceedings unfair.

Rackham v NHS Professionals [2015] EWCA Civ 1245 Verified

Official Source ↗

Procedural Fairness for Litigants in Person

Authority on the obligations of the court to ensure procedural fairness for litigants in person.

Application to this case: G4: The courts owed a duty to ensure the Applicant, as a LiP with disabilities, was not substantially disadvantaged by the proceedings.

Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1 Verified

Official Source ↗

Pre-Service Jurisdiction

A court has no jurisdiction over a claim that has not been served. Any order made before service is a jurisdictional void.

Application to this case: G1: The transfer of BL-2024-001166 was made before service (court email 28.08.24 confirms). Per Fourie, this renders the transfer and all subsequent orders void.

Ground A

Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20 Verified

Official Source ↗

Proper Approach to Applications

Authority on the proper procedural approach to applications, including the requirement for proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

Application to this case: Multiple orders were made without proper application notices or opportunity for the Applicant to respond.

Tibbles v SIG [2012] EWCA Civ 518 Verified

Official Source ↗

Limits of CPR 3.1(7) Power to Vary

The power under CPR 3.1(7) to revoke or vary an order is not unlimited. It is not to be used as a substitute for appeal. However, it extends to orders made on a mistaken basis or where there has been a material change of circumstances.

Application to this case: G1: The Applicant relies on Tibbles to argue that orders made during MHCM were made on a fundamentally mistaken basis (ignoring the statutory moratorium).

Storer v British Gas [2000] EWCA Civ 51 Verified

Official Source ↗

Time Limits and Substantial Justice

Authority on the approach to time limits and the court's duty to achieve substantial justice.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Applicant's position on time limits for filing appeals, given the MHCM and disability.

Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) Verified

Official Source ↗

Equitable Lease

An agreement for a lease, supported by consideration, may be treated as an equitable lease even without a formal deed.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Chelsea Harbour tenancy dispute and the status of the lease agreement.

Norglen v Reeds [1998] UKHL 26 Verified

Official Source ↗

Corporate Veil and Insolvency

Authority on the relationship between corporate personality and insolvency proceedings.

Application to this case: Relevant to the insolvency proceedings and the Applicant's position on corporate liability.

Re Saunders [1996] EWHC Ch 34 Verified

Official Source ↗

Public Examination in Insolvency

Authority on the scope and conduct of public examinations under the Insolvency Act.

Application to this case: Relevant to the DCQ examination. If the winding-up order is void, examination under s.133/134 is without jurisdiction.

Matthews v Smallwood [1910] EWHC Ch 1 Verified

Official Source ↗

Waiver of Forfeiture

A landlord who, with knowledge of the cause of forfeiture, does any act recognising the continued existence of the tenancy waives the forfeiture.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Chelsea Harbour forfeiture. The Applicant contends that the landlord waived its right to forfeit through subsequent conduct.

Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways [2002] UKHL 19 Verified

Official Source ↗

Conversion and Measure of Damages

The leading authority on damages for conversion of goods, establishing that damages should reflect the full value of the goods wrongfully dealt with.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Applicant's conversion claim. The Defendant sold the Applicant's chattels for £1,100. The true value was significantly higher.

Wasif v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 82 Verified

Official Source ↗

Totally Without Merit: Proper Application of the Test

A TWM certification must be properly reasoned. The standard requires that the application has no realistic prospect of success. Multi-limb applications cannot be certified TWM if any limb has arguable merit.

Application to this case: G5: Four TWM certifications were clustered in 23 days. Several were on multi-limb applications containing administrative limbs (e.g. transcript requests) that were plainly not TWM.

Ground E

Godwin v Swindon [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 Verified

Official Source ↗

Housing and Discrimination

Authority on discrimination in housing and the obligations of local authorities.

Application to this case: Relevant to the housing aspects of the case and the Defendant's obligations.

Adan v Newham LBC [2001] EWCA Civ 1916 Verified

Official Source ↗

Housing Duties and Vulnerability

Authority on local authority housing duties towards vulnerable persons.

Application to this case: Relevant to the Applicant's vulnerability as a disabled person and the housing aspects of the claim.