B2/2001/1683
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1878
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
ON APPEAL FROM SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Thompson)
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London

Tuesday 27 November 2001

Before:

LORD JUSTICE WALLER

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:
JOHN CARNELL
Claimant/Applicant
And:
(1) LYNNE MIDDLETON
(2) CHRISTOPHER BOWEN
Defendants/Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Transcript prepared from the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Ltd
190 Fleet Street   London EC4A 2AG
Tel:  0207 404 1400
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Applicant did not appear and was not represented

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT

Tuesday 27 November 2001
1.	LORD JUSTICE WALLER: On 12 July 2001, His Honour Judge Anthony Thompson QC tried a dispute between Mr Carnell and Lynne Middleton and Christopher Bowen. That dispute related to some building works that had been done at the house of Miss Middleton, which she shared with her boyfriend, Mr Bowen.
2.	Various points arose before the judge. The first was whether the contract was made between the claimant, Mr Carnell, and Miss Middleton and Mr Bowen, or whether it was made between a partnership, C'n'G, and Miss Middleton and Mr Bowen; secondly, whether there had been a compromise reached; and, thirdly, whether, if Miss Middleton and Mr Bowen did not succeed on those two points, they had a counterclaim.
3.	The judge made findings of fact. He found, first, that the contract was between C'n'G and Miss Middleton and Mr Bowen; and he then found that, even if he were wrong about that, a compromise had been reached. He thus did not need to decide any point on the counterclaim. He refused permission to appeal. 
4.	An application was made to this court for permission to appeal which I refused on paper, saying that both points had been decided by the judge on the facts and also saying that I did not think it was arguable that the findings were perverse, or that there was any procedural irregularity, or that the findings were against the weight of the evidence.
5.	The application for permission was renewed and was listed for today. It seems (although I was not aware of it until I arrived at the court at ten o'clock this morning) that the solicitors representing Mr Carnell had applied last Thursday to take themselves off the record and had been granted that relief. Following the obtaining of that relief, on 23 November (last Friday) those solicitors wrote to the Civil Appeals Office saying that they had been removed from the record and giving the Civil Appeals Office Mr Carnell’s address. It is unclear, I have to say, as to whether they had notified Mr Carnell personally of the appointment today. In any event, the position is that neither Mr Carnell nor anybody representing him appeared this morning at ten o'clock in order to renew the application. They have not appeared during the morning and are not here now at one o’clock. 
6.	I have again read the papers fully for the purpose of this morning's hearing. I am confirmed in the view that I had originally taken, that there was no basis on which it was arguable that the Court of Appeal would reverse the findings of fact made by the judge on either of the two issues. 
7.	I am delivering this judgment so that it can be forwarded to Mr Carnell so that he should know that permission to appeal has been re-considered and has once again been refused. He should, of course, also be informed that if he could give some reason why he was unable to be present today, then he would be entitled to renew that application before me. Having read the papers in detail, I however give him no encouragement to do that. 
8.	Thus it is that this application for permission to appeal must be refused.
9.	A transcript should, of course, be made available to Mr Carnell at public expense.
ORDER: Application refused. Copy of the transcript of this judgment to be provided to the applicant at public expense.