![]() |
[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 >> Jones v Ungley & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1979 (29 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1979.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1979 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BOURNEMOUTH COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE THOMPSON QC)
Strand London WC2 Thursday, 29th November 2001 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
SYLVIA GERTRUDE JONES | ||
Claimant | ||
- v - | ||
JOHN UNGLEY | ||
LESTER ALDRIDGE | ||
Defendants |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Defendant did not attend and was unrepresented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 29th November 2001
"Notwithstanding the delay in making this application, I have considered the prospects of an appeal on the merits. I am quite satisfied that even if time were extended an appeal has no realistic prospect of success."
"I regret that, having read the papers in this case and listened with care to the claimant, Mrs Jones, this is a case of a claimant who has simply been unable to accept negative advice which has been given over a considerable period of time by several solicitors and several counsel who have been fully instructed by her in relation to the original complaint.
In my judgment, having looked at that advice, and having looked at her present claim, the advice which she has been given on so many occasions by so many people has been both realistic and right, and Mrs Jones unfortunately has been both unrealistic and wrong in being unable to accept it and seeking to conclude on each occasion that those who have been advising her have been guilty of professional negligence.
I would add that the claimant is only in a position to pursue claims through legal aid and it is no surprise at all, having looked at the nature of these claims, that legal aid has proved to be unavailable to sustain them.
In my judgment the learned judge was plainly right in this case to reach the conclusion that these claims were ones which had no realistic prospect of success any more than the probability was that the original claim, which goes back to the end of the 1970s and the beginning of 1980s, itself was one which would in all probability have failed.
In those circumstances this oral application for permission to appeal will be refused."
"No appeal may be made against a decision of a court under this section to give or refuse permission (but this subsection does not affect any right under rules of court to make a further application for permission to the same or another court)."
"There is no appeal from a decision of the appeal court, made at an oral hearing, to allow or refuse permission to appeal to that court. See section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and rule 52.3(3) and (4)."
"In addition to refusing permission to appeal Langley J refused your request for an adjournment and made an order for costs. It is open to you to seek to appeal those provisions in paragraphs 1 and 3 of his order, but Clarke LJ wanted you to have the opportunity to consider whether or not you wish to proceed with your application. This court has explained in the judgment which he gave in Clark v Perks that: 'Where the appeal court makes a further order such as a costs order or an order refusing an adjournment an appeal does in theory lie to this court with permission, although it is likely to be a very rare case in which such permission would be granted.'"