[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 >> Miller v C & G Coach Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1629 (18 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1629.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1629

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARD SEYMOUR)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Friday, 18 October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: This is a difficult case. It was a difficult case, I think, for the trial judge. His eventual conclusion that there was no liability is the subject of the application for permission to appeal which I dealt with initially on paper.
2. For the sake of clarity, I should perhaps explain that the purpose and, I trust, the effect of the order I then made was that there was an arguable case for the admission of fresh evidence which the full court ought to hear and decide. It was also my view, and remains my view, that if the fresh evidence is admitted, the appeal becomes viable. I therefore further directed that if the fresh evidence is admitted, the court would proceed to hear the appeal. However, I also took the view that without the fresh evidence the issues spelt out in Mr Purchas' skeleton argument and appellant's notice did not stand a sufficient chance of success.
3. Mr Purchas comes before the court today to renew orally his application in respect of those issues standing free, as it were, of any fresh evidence. It seems to me that the court which decides upon the admission of fresh evidence will have to examine with care the extant state of the evidence upon which the judge came to his conclusions. It will therefore be very much better placed than I am to decide whether, even in the absence of fresh evidence, the appeal points are viable.
4. What I propose to do, accordingly, is to stand over to the full court the present application for permission to appeal upon the issues which, according to the order I have so far made, are dependent on the admission of fresh evidence. The full court, I think, will not have its task much prolonged. The estimate of a day can stand. All issues will therefore be compendiously looked at when the hearing on notice comes on in due course.

ORDER: Application adjourned to the full court.