[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Alliotts (A Firm) v Reynard [2001] EWCA Civ 1105 (11 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1105.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1105

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(His Honour Judge Playford QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 11th July 2001

Wednesday, 11th July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Mr Reynard, who appears in person, seeks permission to appeal a decision of His Honour Judge Playford QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, made on 27th June this year whereby he gave final directions for this trial, which is due to start next Monday, and refused an application made on behalf of Mr Reynard, who was then represented by counsel, to adjourn the case.
2. The proceedings started as long ago as February 1996. The claimant, a firm of accountants, claims some £66,000 odd of unpaid fees. Mr Reynard admits that he has not paid those fees and, subject to his counterclaim, would be liable to pay them; but he asserts a counterclaim for damages for negligence.
3. The background is, very briefly, that Mr Reynard lent money to a company called Howglen Ltd and entered into two bank guarantees in relation to that company. He alleges in his current pleading that the claimant was negligent in failing to give him certain advice before he made the loan and entered into the guarantees and in giving incorrect advice as to the profitability of Howglen in 1994. In due course an administrative receiver was appointed over the company, and hence he suffered substantial losses.
4. Mr Reynard was in receipt of public funding and was, as I say, represented by solicitors and counsel. He was dissatisfied with his solicitors and applied to the Legal Services Commission for their discharge. The certificate in respect of that firm was discharged at about the end of 2000. I understand that the Commission took many months before deciding whether to sanction a replacement. The position now appears to be that he is wholly without public funding for this litigation.
5. Mr Reynard's real complaint is that his current pleading does not contain a number of allegations which he wishes to make to supplement his complaint of negligence on the part of the claimant. When the matter came before the judge on the 27th June he did not make an application for permission to amend his pleading to introduce the new allegations. So far as I am aware, even now there is no draft re-amended defence and counterclaim in being. What he did say to the judge, however, was that he wished the proceedings to be adjourned so that the question of public funding could be resolved. It is not clear to me whether, in addition, he indicated to the judge that he wished to introduce new allegations and therefore was seeking an adjournment for that reason too. The transcript of the discussion between Mr Kynoch, who then represented Mr Reynard, and the judge would appear to indicate that the sole basis upon which the application for an adjournment was made was the problems with the Legal Services Commission. As I have said, those problems have now been resolved to the disadvantage of Mr Reynard in that it now appears that he has not, and will not, be in receipt of public funding. At all events, the judge made it clear that he recognised that the trial was likely to be conducted with Mr Reynard unrepresented. He felt, however, that the case was so stale and that so much money had been spent in preparing it - a figure of £100,000 was mentioned - that he was not prepared to contemplate any further delay. Mr Reynard seeks permission to challenge that decision.
6. It seems to me that it is impossible to say that the judge exercised his discretion in a way which was not open to him, especially since it seems that the primary, if not the sole, basis upon which the application was made was that Mr Reynard would be likely to be without representation unless there were an adjournment. It now is clear that, even with an adjournment, Mr Reynard will continue to be unrepresented.
7. I am very sympathetic to the position of Mr Reynard, but I am afraid that he will have to conduct this trial as best he is able next week. The judge will, I am confident, give him all the assistance that it is proper for a judge to give to a litigant in person, but this application must be refused.
Order: Application refused.