[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 >> Stanton v Stanton [2002] EWCA Civ 1015 (17 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1015.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1015

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM COLCHESTER COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Brandt)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 17th June 2002

Monday, 17th June 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an appeal on a limited basis directed by the order of Ward LJ dated 26th February 2002. He had before him an application for permission to appeal an order of His Honour Judge Brandt, sitting in the Colchester County Court on 31st July 2001. Mr Stanton, as the litigant in person, was dissatisfied with an order made by District Judge Molle on 19th June 2001 in the same court. The judge fell into the error of conceiving that Mr Stanton required permission to appeal. This error is easily understood, since, as a result of the Woolf Reforms, permission is now required for an appeal from the District Judge to the Circuit Judge in civil proceedings but otherwise in ancillary relief proceedings.
2. Accordingly, Mr Stanton has never had his appeal. He has only had the mistaken refusal of an application for permission, which he did not require and had not sought. So it is sensibly conceded by Mr Elcombe for the respondent that the order cannot stand. Indeed his instructing solicitors by a letter of 20th March 2002 offered a fresh hearing in the County Court by a different judge. That offer was refused by Mr Stanton probably on 13th April 2002, although his letter is erroneously dated 13th March.
3. As a consequence of the grant of permission, Mr Stanton has received continuing assistance from the RCJ Citizen's Advice Board Office, who have managed to secure the services of Mr Timothy Scott QC as from Thursday last. Mr Scott will forgive me if I say that that indeed is an apparent sledge hammer to crack a nut, since, following the letter of 20th March, really there is nothing in this case. Mr Scott has explained that his client's refusal of the sensible offer of 20th March was the product of the misunderstanding of the effect of Ward LJ's order.
4. All parties being in accord, we will, by consent, allow the appeal, set aside the orders of his Honour Judge Brandt and direct a hearing of Mr Stanton's appeal from the order of the District Judge to be listed by another judge in the County Court as soon as practicable.
5. Ward LJ did direct that Mr Stanton should apply in this court to adduce fresh evidence. He did not set a time limit on the application, and Mr Scott has himself valiantly attempted to draft the relevant fresh evidence since his arrival in the case. But for the purposes of the despatch of this appeal it is not necessary to call for fresh evidence.
6. It might, however, be helpful to the parties if we were to give directions in relation to the conduct of the appeal in the county court by saying that the evidence that Mr Stanton wishes to rely upon in support of his appeal should be filed within four weeks and that Mrs Stanton's evidence in response should be filed 14 days thereafter, with any reply from Mr Stanton, if so advised seven days after that.
Order: As above. There will be no order in respect of the appeal costs prior to 20th March. Thereafter the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the respondent's notice, shall be treated as costs in the proceedings below and dependent on the outcome of the county court appeal. Public funding assessment of the respondent's costs.