[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 >> Treherne & Ors v Amateur Boxing Association Of England Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 802 (22 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/802.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 802

[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 Justice Garland)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Tuesday, 22nd May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: I think that I am speaking for both of us in making these observations.
2. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. We have had perhaps unusually lengthy argument on behalf of the applicants, less lengthy on behalf of the respondent. At the end of the day, we have not found the issues easy at all. Indeed, we take the view that there is further analysis that can be done by reference to the Affiliated Regional Association Rules, section 2 (205/206), and the letters that were sent: that is, further analysis as to precisely who (what clubs, what persons) were making the offer; whether the contract was one under which the ABAE might be prevented from withdrawing the consent which it might arguably be said had been given under rule 2 (206) and whether, if that is the nature of the bargain, there was consideration, and precisely what the consideration was and how it was put.
3. In the course of the debate on those questions it will have been clear from certain of the points put to Mr Flynn that we are not suggesting there is a high prospect of success so far as the applicants are concerned. But if we apply the test which it is right to apply as to whether the applicants have no real prospect of success, we think that they are over that hurdle and that thus permission to appeal should be granted.
4. There was a moment when we were suggesting that we should try to get the appeal listed before us with a third judge as a matter of speed, since we had spent a great deal of time thinking about the point this afternoon. But on reflection, and because of the way the arguments have developed and redeveloped, it is probably right to give a little further time to the parties to consider their positions. Thus the right course is simply to grant permission to appeal and let matters take their normal course.
5. My Lord then makes two further points, with which I would agree. The first is an obvious one, which is that clearly this appeal arises out of difficulties which have arisen between the WABF and the WABA and possibly the ABAE itself. Obviously, if matters can be sorted out which do not involve further expense on legal proceedings and an appeal, that must be a sensible way to resolve matters. Of course, if it helps, or could help, I hope both parties are aware of the mediation service that is now supplied by the Court of Appeal. They might want to take advantage of that.
6. We have not listened to argument about the relief aspect of the case, the judge holding that he would not have granted an injunction. We have not considered that aspect at all. Before the Court of Appeal could consider that aspect it would obviously be relevant for that Court to know what the precise situation is now as between the various bodies and, indeed, as to what the position is in relation to members of various bodies and their ability or inability, as it may be, to take part in European Championships, Commonwealth Games, Olympic Games and matters of that sort.
Order: application for permission to appeal granted.