Direction was given as to the circumstances allowing an appeal out of time after a change in the law affecting a decision after the judgment had been given. Corrections to Bannister v SGB plc made in respect of time calculations in County Court Rules in cases under Order 17 r 11. The rule led to actions being struck out where there had been no trial on the merits: ‘In other words, this is a quite different context in which to apply the general principle that there must be finality in litigation . . it is difficult to imagine circumstances more special than those which have flowed from the introduction of [the rule].’ An extension of time for appealing would not be given automatically. Among the factors which would strongly militate against the grant of such an extension four were lists. The first of these was any inexcusable delay in applying for an extension of time. The third was if ‘the respondent can demonstrate that he or his insurers have reasonably acted on the basis that the claim is at an end, and their affairs have been conducted on this basis or if prejudice has been suffered in any other way.’
The court emphasised the need to file an appeal within the time limit even if legal aid had not yet been granted.
The court discussed the difficulties caused by differing paragraph numbers in the reporting of judgments: ‘We authorised two versions of our judgment in Bannister to be published, one in hard copy transcript form and one on the Internet. Because the page numbering of these two versions differed and because those who downloaded the judgment from the Internet are likely to have different paging systems, we have inserted paragraph numbering into the main text of the original judgment (as opposed to its Schedules). In the Schedule to the present judgment we explain the paragraph numbering we have now adopted. It also seemed to us that it would be very much more convenient if we were to incorporate into the original text of our judgment the corrections and clarifications we have mentioned, and we have directed that it is this revised version of our judgment in Bannister, as clarified and corrected, which should appear in any official law report. We have also directed that the text of the judgment which currently appears on FELIX, the judges’ electronic communications system, and on the Internet on the website of the Lord Chancellor’s Department should be replaced by this revised version, and copies of this revised version should be sent to court administrators for distribution to judges as before. In addition, this judgment should itself be distributed on FELIX and the Internet, and to court administrators for distribution to judges.
We also believed that it would be helpful to practitioners if we were to include in our present judgment a summary of the new points decided by two-judge divisions of this court during the four weeks which followed our judgment in Bannister. Most of the cases they heard raised no new points of general interest, but a few of them did, and we are including a summary of these in the final part of this judgment.’
Judges:
Saville, Brooke, Waller LJJ
Citations:
Times 28-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2026, [1997] 4 All ER 181, [1998] 1 WLR 1164
Links:
Statutes:
County Court Rules 1981 Ord 17 R 11
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bannister v SGB Plc and others and 19 Other Appeals CA 25-Apr-1997
Detailed guidance was given as to several different problems of interpretation of Order 17 r 11, dealing with automatic directions. Definitive guidelines were given for the interpretation of automatic directions and strike out provisions in the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Cockeril v Tambrands Limited CA 21-May-1998
Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the . .
Cited – Cockerill v Tambrands Ltd; Prolaw Ltd v Adams; Jackson v Pinchbeck CA 21-May-1998
The court considered consolidated appeals relating to the use of Order 17 Rule 11. . .
See Also – Greig Middleton and Co Ltd v Denderowicz (No 2) CA 28-Jul-1997
A claim for under pounds 3,000 in County Court is automatically referred to arbitration without the need for any order to that effect. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.142423