Tennero Ltd v Arnold: QBD 6 Jul 2006

The court considered an application for permission to appeal. The Defendant had not attended the trial, but had applied by letter for an adjournment, which was refused. The trial proceeded and resulted in an order against the Defendant. He applied unsuccessfully under rule 39.3(3) to set the judgment aside, and he also appealed in effect against the refusal to adjourn.
Held: It was an abuse of the process of the court to appeal, because the remedy under rule 39.3 had been used, though to no avail. There was no prospect of success on an appeal against the substantive judgment itself.


Jack J


[2006] EWHC 1530 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 1025




Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(1)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
CitedZambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.243167