Markos v Goodfellow and Barke and Barke: CA 26 Jul 2001

There was a boundary dispute. The judge in the County Court had made an error. Counsel had offered to apply to amend the order under the slip rule, and therefore the judge had refused leave to appeal.
Held: This was an application for leave to apply for a second appeal, and such appeals only very rarely succeed. The procedure adopted was not open to the judge under the rules. Whilst the applicant should not be encouraged to continue the dispute because the likely costs would be disproportionate, ‘I well understood [the] J wishing to bring an end to matters and doing so in the manner he did to achieve proportionality. But the proper processes of the law are involved, and in my judgment it is arguable that the procedure which he followed was not a[n] appropriate one in the circumstances.’


Pill LJ


[2001] EWCA Civ 1324




Access to Justice Act 1999, Civil Procedure Rules 52.2.(3) 52.2.(4) PD 52 4.8


England and Wales


CitedClark v Perkes 2000
The court gave guidance on the practice and procedure on second appeals. . .

Cited by:

CitedMarkos v Goodfellow and others CA 30-Nov-2001
The parties had been involved in a bitter and protracted boundary dispute. The judge had found a minimal encroachment, and awarded nominal damages. He had made an error in the order. At an appeal counsel was given leave to apply to amend the oder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201263