Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction in a manner which is obviously consonant with the intentions of those who drafted these provisions. It will be noted that paragraph 4.3B of the Practice Direction begins with the words ‘Where no application for permission to appeal has been made in accordance with rule 52.3.(2)(a).’ These words seem to me to contemplate a situation in which the original hearing has ended and the losing party has not applied for permission to appeal. One then comes to the following words: ‘but a party requests further time to make such an application, the court may adjourn the hearing to give that party the opportunity to do so.’ It seems to me that when those words are read in context they must confer a power on the court after the end of the hearing at which judgment was given to make an order adjourning that hearing to some other appropriate date in order to hear the application for permission to appeal. Whether or not the court will exercise that jurisdiction is another matter altogether. There must be good reason to do so. There must be good reason for the court to reconvene to hear an application for permission which could perfectly well have been made on the occasion when judgment was handed down. I would have considerable doubts that the court would or possibly could exercise this power after the expiry of the twenty-one day time limit. However, it seems to me that this court does have power under paragraph 4.3B of the Practice Direction and under rule 52.3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to hold a continuation of the original hearing in order to deal with an application for permission to appeal in the period shortly following the date when the original judgment was given, provided that the order has not been drawn up.’
Jackson J
[2007] EWHC 236 (TCC)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 52.3
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
Cited by:
Cited – In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and Others ChD 9-Jul-2009
One of the parties wanted to request permission to appeal, but had not done so at the hearing. The court considered whether it had power to do so at a later hearing.
Held: It did not. The Rules set out a deliberately prescriptive regime which . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.249002
