Proceedings came to trial but the Defendant only had extremely short notice of the hearing, and did not attend. Under RSC Order 35 rule 2 there was a seven day time limit for the application. Instead of applying under the rule, the Defendant appealed. The material put before the court on the appeal included evidence which the appellant might have sought to put before the court at the trial, and the grounds of the appeal were the same as might have been put before the court on an application under Order 35 rule 2. Held; The proper course would have been to apply under the rule to the High Court, but this did not exclude the separate jurisdiction which the Court of Appeal had to order a new trial if a good case was made out. It dismissed the appeal on the merits.
Citations:
[1982] Ch 30
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270585