The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal. Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an important point of principle or practice’ is to an important point of principle or practice that … Continue reading Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd: CA 3 Feb 2005
Renewed application for leave to appeal: ‘Quite how securely the door to the Court of Appeal should be shut by narrowly confining CPR 52.13(2)(a) to new points or principle, and precisely what the interrelationship is between (2)(a) and (2)(b), are matters which may need to be subject to further and fuller argument if this Court … Continue reading Brown and Brown v Fenwick: CA 4 Oct 2001
The court considered the significance of CPR 52.13(2): ‘The restriction on second appeals is important because Parliament has made it clear that it wishes pretrial disputes in civil litigation to be dealt with, on the whole, at a level lower than this court. It may be that judges in the courts below may make orders … Continue reading Ahmed v Stanley A Coleman and Hill: CA 18 Jun 2002
An accountant sought payment of his professional fees. The defendants had sought to re-amend their defence and counterclaim. Appeals had variously been allowed to go ahead or denied after the master had not been able to deal with all of them for lack of time. Held: The several appeals raised common issues. Some were first … Continue reading The Convergence Group Plc and Another v Chantrey Vellacott (a Firm): CA 16 Mar 2005
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the claimant. Held: The Rules should generally be interpreted without reference to case law under the … Continue reading Hashtroodi v Hancock: CA 27 May 2004
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused. Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to serve, including mere oversight. The court’s discretion might then be exercised according … Continue reading Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc: CA 14 May 2003
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court of Appeal. Appeals will generally be subject to leave being obtained. An … Continue reading Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald: CA 12 May 2000
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
