|[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 >> Mehta v Evans Dodd (A Firm of Solicitors) & Ors  EWCA Civ 1693 (26 October 2001)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1693
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE JACK AND MRS JUSTICE HALLETT)
Friday, 26th October 2001
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BODEY
|- v -|
|1. EVANS DODD (A Firm of Solicitors)|
|2. BEVRIDGE ROSS & PREVEZER (A Firm of Solicitors)|
|3. BARLOW LYDE & GILBERT (A Firm of Solicitors)|
|4. BEACHCROFT WANSBROUGH (A Firm of Solicitors)||Defendants|
|ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND||Defendant|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Defendants did not attend and were unrepresented
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 26th October 2001
"It appears... that there is no doubt that the effect of Mr Mehta accepting £40,000 from Mr Ramji was that that was complete satisfaction of the common-law damages which Mr Southwell had assessed under all three headings of compensatory aggravated and exemplary damages. That meant that there was no further claim by Mr Mehta for recovery of the sum of £27,500 either against Mr Nolan or Mr Adams or against any other persons who in subsequent legal proceedings he sought to make concurrently liable for torts in relation to his wrongful eviction from the Brompton Hotel on 6th May 1994."
"These proceedings are simply yet another attempt to rake over old ground... The claimant has produced no new evidence, or evidence, at all before me to substantiate his present action or causes of action. He says repeatedly that the evidence is there to be seen on the documents and in his witness statement, but I cannot see it. I can find no new evidence, no new allegations. All the matters put before me by Mr Mehta in his lengthy submissions have been fully and fairly ventilated before previous tribunals. Despite my best endeavours, therefore, I find it impossible to ascertain any legal basis for Mr Mehta's present action. ... whether he likes it or not, as far as the law is concerned, his action for common law damages as a result of his eviction and the litigation flowing therefrom is now at an end. He has exhausted his avenues of appeal. He must accept it is the end of the road."
"A device... to reclothe what is essentially the same cause of action."
"The claim against each defendant discloses no new arguable cause of action, and I am entirely satisfied that they are an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined, and they are, therefore, an abuse of the process."
"I fear, having spent several hours listening to his [the claimant's] submissions and reading his written submissions, that Mr Mehta is now losing touch with reality. The litigation is over, but Mr Mehta cannot come to terms with that fact."
"Mr Mehta has not complied with orders of the court to pay costs to these defendants to date. Either he will ruin himself, if he has not done so already, or the other parties will never see their money again. I am satisfied that he is no longer a reasonable and responsible litigant as far as the effects upon him of his unlawful eviction and this litigation are concerned. He cannot, or will not, accept decisions adverse to him, and he is prepared to make wild and unsupported complaints about professional men and women."
"Having seen the way in which Mr Mehta has conducted this hearing over the last two days, I am conscious of my responsibility to other litigants who wish their cases to be heard within a reasonable time."
"(a) the court considers that the appeal will have a real prospect of success, or
(b) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard."
"This litigation is over, but Mr Mehta is now losing touch with reality."