BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[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 >> Barnes v Handf Acceptances Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1238 (25 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1238.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1238 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LAMBETH COUNTY COURT
(MR JUSTICE HART)
Strand London WC2 Thursday, 25th July 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ERIC BARNES | Applicant | |
- v - | ||
HANDF ACCEPTANCES LTD | Defendant |
____________________
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)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The Appeal for which permission is sought would raise no important point of principle or practice and there is no other compelling reason why the Court of Appeal should hear it.
The judge directed himself correctly as to the principles to be applied in deciding whether or not to allow an appeal against a decision to refuse permission to serve amended particulars of claim. He dismissed the appeal on that issue for the reasons which he gave in a full and careful judgment. In particular, he was satisfied that to allow the proposed amended pleading into this litigation would (i) make it impossible to deal with the claim expeditiously and fairly and (ii) necessarily lengthen the case beyond anything that could be regarded as proportionate to the underlying claims (which he regarded as relatively simple and which, as a result of his order, the claimant is able to pursue). Even if this were not a second appeal - to which the provisions of section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 apply - there would be no basis upon which this Court could properly interfere with the judge's decision."
"So, as it seems to me we have a situation in which there was a claim before the court which disclosed a reasonable cause of action but which plainly required some amendment if it was to reflect (a) the events that had taken place since the service of the original particulars, and (b) the new ways in which the claimant wanted to put his case. It is in relation to the latter that the amended particulars of claim are directed. It is indeed an extraordinary document. It was not at the time but has now been numbered and it consists of some 423 paragraphs, many of which contain subparagraphs. I believe it has been calculated that there are something over 700 paragraphs altogether. There are certainly, in the version that has been produced before me today, 132 pages. It would be a fruitless task for me to attempt to summarise their essence. I think an attempt to summarise their essence is doomed to failure."
"... the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. So far as that is concerned, I entirely agree with His Honour Judge Cox. It may be the case that after diligent and lengthy perusal of the amended particulars of claim, it is possible for the court to spell out from it certain broad elements which the court could then begin to try, but it would be an extremely lengthy process, so lengthy as to be, in practice, impossible for the court to deal with, having regard to the requirements of the overriding objective..."