Dorrell v Dorrell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MRS JUSTICE BOOTH,THE PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Civ J1029-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 84/0389 |
| Date | 29 October 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Civ J1029-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
On appeal from Order of His Honour Judge Perks,
Croydon County Court.
Royal Courts of Justice,
The President (Sir John Arnold)
and
Mrs Justice Booth
84/0389
Mr ALEXANDER CRANBROOK (instructed by Messrs Gowen & Stevens) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Applicant).
Mr MICHAEL PATCHETT-JOYCE (instructed by Messrs Donne Mileham & Haddock, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Perks, sitting in the Croydon County Court. He had before him, on the 13th August, an application for the committal of the Respondent to this appeal, who was the Respondent to the application below. The breach which it was said should be visited by committal was a breach of an Order which had been made on the 26th June 1984, whereby it was ordered that the Respondent should be enjoined and restrained from, among other things, entering or attempting to enter 234 Davidson Road, Croydon. The affidavit in support of that application makes it clear (and there is no dispute about this) that part of the premises consisted of a lean-to against the side of the house. What was alleged, in support of the application, was that on the 26th June the Petitioner, the Appellant before us, discovered on arriving at the property that the back door was hanging off its hinges and the glass of the door had been smashed. Then later on she discovered that all the glass in the lean-to round the back door had been smashed and the place was in a chaotic state. There was then a paragraph in the affidavit, which quite rightly the learned Judge struck out as being wholly hearsay, which was to the effect that a neighbour of the Petitioner, who did not give evidence, saw the Respondent causing the damage which was described. That paragraph the learned Judge refused to entertain. But then the Respondent put in an affidavit in which he said that following the hearing on the 26th June he did go to the house, and the dog was jumping up and down against the door and was clearly very agitated; "I grabbed the door which seemed to give way very easily and the glass unfortunately shattered". Then there follows this sentence: "I was disturbed to find when I did go in that both children's bikes were in an unsafe condition". He does not say specifically that what he went into was the lean-to; but, assuming that in his favour, that it was only the lean-to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmsworth v Harmsworth
...details and particulars—that is clear on the face of the notice. I found Mr. Curtis's submission surprising. I was referred to Dorrell v. Dorrell and the note in the Green Book. I cannot find anything in that report justifying the dogmatism set out. Dorrell v. Dorrell says the nature of the......