Ahmed v Stanley A Coleman and Hill: CA 18 Jun 2002

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 which judges in this court would not have made, but the philosophy of the Civil Procedure Rules is to confirm and bolster the authority of the judges in the lower courts.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 935

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 52.13(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd CA 3-Feb-2005
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 . .
CitedBrewer, Regina (on the Application of) v Supreme Court Costs Office Admn 27-Jul-2006
The defendant had been acquitted. Orders had been made both for payment of his legal costs, and also for re-imbursement of his own costs. The defendant was accused of serious fraud, and had engaged an American attorney to assist him before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.217262