[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 >> Bentley v Jones Harris & Company [2001] EWCA Civ 1678 (2 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1678.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1678

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr H K Goddard QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Friday, 2nd November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr King, on behalf of the appellant, who has only recently been instructed in this matter, seeks today -the day of the hearing of the appeal, which he does not ask to be adjourned - to expand the grounds of appeal beyond the single ground which has been the subject of the grant of permission in order to pursue two separate and discrete issues from the issue raised in the ground at present before us.
2. Clearly, the application is made far too late for that matter to be able to be dealt with properly today. In any event, it seems to me that the issues were indeed discrete issues. They were issues dealt with, it seems to me, adequately by the judge in a way which does not satisfy me that it would be in the interests of justice to permit those grounds to be argued, with the consequential problems that would be raised in terms of the disposal of this appeal.
3. Accordingly, I would refuse the application.
4. MR JUSTICE BURTON: I agree.
5. I would simply draw attention to the Practice Direction to CPR Part 52, paragraph 4.18, which indicates that, in so far as this court does have jurisdiction to allow issues to be raised in respect of which permission has been earlier refused, there must be a notification of any intention to raise such an issue as soon as practicable after notification of the court order.
6. This appears to me to be a paradigm case, because it seems, as my Lord has said, entirely clear that these issues are discrete and that, if it was to begin to be possible to persuade us that they are not, proper notice ought to have been given to the court and to the respondents to enable them to fill in the gaps which plainly exist (perfectly understandably, because of his late instruction) in the knowledge and submissions of counsel for the applicant.
7. For that reason and for those given by my Lord, I would reject this application to expand the grounds of appeal.
Order: application dismissed.