Sayers v Clarke Walker (A firm): CA 14 May 2002

In a case of any complexity, when an appeal court considered an application for leave to appeal which was filed out of time, it should have in mind the matters listed in the rules. It was not appropriate to use judge made checklists where one was provided in the rules: ‘[I]n cases where the arguments for granting or refusing an extension of time were otherwise evenly balanced, a court will have to evaluate the merits of the proposed appeal in order to form a judgment on what the defendants will be losing if time is not extended . . The consequences of the new requirement for permission to appeal is that if other factors militate towards the refusal of an extension of time, the likely prospects of success will have to be weighed in the balance. In other words the consequence of the appellants’ failure to comply with the rule will be more serious for them if the court thinks that it is more probable than not that their appeal will succeed if it is allowed to proceed than if its prospects of success are smaller, even though they just pass the threshold at which it can be said that they are ‘real’ rather than fanciful.’

Lord Justice Brooke
Times 03-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 645, [2002] 3 All ER 490, [2002] 1 WLR 3095, [2002] CP Rep 61
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
See AlsoSayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) CA 10-Jul-2002
. .
See AlsoSayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) CA 26-Jun-2002
. .

Cited by:
CitedPrice v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
See AlsoSayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) CA 26-Jun-2002
. .
See AlsoSayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) CA 10-Jul-2002
. .
CitedAXA General Insurance Limited v Gottlieb CA 11-Feb-2005
The defendant made a claim under an insurance policy. The insurer made an interim payment, but then asserted that the claim was fraudulent, and sought recovery of the interim payment.
Held: At common law, fraud in an insurance claim, once . .
CitedHeath v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd ChD 29-Jan-2009
The appellant challenged a mortgagee’s possession order saying that the loan agreements sought to be enforced were invalid and the charges unenforceable. The loan had been in two parts. She said that as a multi-part agreement it fell within section . .
CitedKaneria v Kaneria and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions.
Held: Unless and until a higher Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.170309