[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 >> West Hampstead Management Company Ltd v Pearl Property Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1072 (10 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1072.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1072

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LANDS TRIBUNAL
MR JUSTICE FRANCIS, FRICS, TRIBUNAL MEMBER

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 10th July 2002

1. MASTER VENNE: There is before the court an application by a firm of solicitors, Messrs Piper Smith and Basham, for an order that they be removed from the record as acting for the appellants, West Hampstead Management Company Limited, in proceedings pending before the court.
2. The matter arises in this way: on 19th December the court received an appellant's notice by which the company, West Hampstead Management Limited, sought permission to appeal against a decision of the Lands Tribunal which had been given on 19th November. That notice was signed, I note, by a director of the company, but the name of the solicitors, Piper Smith and Basham, together with their address, was included on the form.
3. On 21st January of this year the court received an amended appellant's notice which was completed and signed by those solicitors, and Miss McLean, who appears before me today, does not seek to contend that those solicitors were not on the record.
4. On 25th January Buxton LJ extended time in which to file the appellant's notice. He granted permission to amend that notice and also permission to appeal if such permission was indeed to be required. In addition the Lord Justice directed that the matter be entered in the short warn list. Subsequently correspondence followed and I acceded to an application to remove the matter from the short warned list.
5. Against that background I now turn to the present application which was received as recently as 26th June. It was prepared and signed by Miss Lisa McLean who has helpfully appeared before me today. She deposes to the fact that on 19th December she received a voice mail from the court stating that her firm was on the record as acting for the appellants. She then spoke to Mr Edwards and Mr Murray, who are directors of the company, and both of whom have appeared today; Mr Edwards making submissions on both their behalfs.
6. She made clear that her firm was not prepared to act until she had received full payment of the costs incurred in respect of an earlier application to adjourn the Tribunal proceedings. She then goes on to describe how a cheque, which was received in January 2002, was not subsequently honoured and was returned unpaid by the bank. She also pointed out that counsel's fees remain outstanding.
7. On 16th March a bill was delivered to West Hampstead for a little over £4,000, but which, at least at the time of the deposition, remained unpaid. There is also in issue an amount of some £2,379 which are counsel's fees.
8. Today Miss McLean has brought me up-to-date. She tells me that some money has been paid, indeed some £2,500. Mr Edwards, for his part, has asserted that he has himself paid some amount towards counsel's fees and that there is, indeed, no great distance between them in respect of the funds which are now due.
9. Be that as it may, the solicitors feel that they are not in a position to act for this company until they have been put properly in funds for the purposes of the forthcoming hearing before this court. In these circumstances I feel bound to make the order sought removing their name from the record and I will simply add this: that if West Hampstead are in a position, as they contend, to reinstruct and place the solicitors in funds then Miss McLean has said that she, for her part, speaking on behalf of the firm, would be willing to act in the matter.