Rickards v Rickards: CA 20 Jun 1989

What Lane v. Esdaile decided, and all that it decided, was that where it is provided that an appeal shall lie by leave of a particular court or courts, neither the grant nor refusal of leave is an appealable decision. The Court of Appeal could depart from an earlier decision in those ‘rare and exceptional cases’ where the court was ‘satisfied that the decision involved a manifest slip or error’.
Lord Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ, Nicholls LJ
[1990] Fam 194, [1989] EWCA Civ 8, [1989] 3 WLR 748, [1990] 1 FLR 125, [1989] 3 All ER 193
England and Wales
CitedLane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .

Cited by:
CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
CitedWalsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.182915