B1/01/1875
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 468
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                            
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BOURNEMOUTH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Bond)
                                    Royal Courts of Justice
                                    Strand
                                    London WC2
 
                          Wednesday, 6th March 2002
B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

- - - - - - - -

JULIE DAWN INFANTE

- v -

ANTONIO INFANTE
Applicant
- - - - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 0207-421 4040
Fax No: 0207-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - -

THE APPLICANT appeared in Person.

- - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application for permission to appeal brought by Mr. Antonio Infante. It relates to ancillary relief proceedings in the Bournemouth County Court. An order was made on 1st February 2001 fixing the date of trial for 19th April. Solicitors acting for Mr. Infante wrote to the wife's solicitors asking them to agree an adjournment on the basis that Mr Infante was committed to a contract for coaching young boys in football. The request was refused. Accordingly, an application for an adjournment was issued by Mr. Infante's solicitors. The application was refused by the district judge on 3rd April. Mr. Infante's solicitors then appealed to the circuit judge, Her Honour Judge McKinney. That appeal was dismissed on 18th April, the eve of the fixture. Accordingly, Mr. Infante had a choice. Either he had to go to court on the following day or he had to coach the boys in football. He chose to coach the boys. Accordingly, at this vital trial, whilst he was represented by counsel he was not there to give his side of the story. The district judge did his best. He made an order in the exercise of his discretion which, on a clean break basis or a virtual clean break basis, gave the applicant wife the final matrimonial home.
2.	Mr. Infante appealed against that outcome. The appeal came before His Honour Judge Bond on 26th June. Mr. Infante appeared in person, though assisted by a McKenzie friend. The judge delivered a careful judgment in which he expressed some misgivings about an outcome that gave Mr. Infante no part of the final matrimonial home or its proceed of sale, but nonetheless the judge concluded that that outcome was not unreasonable in all the circumstances, particularly given that the district judge had not had the opportunity of hearing from Mr. Infante.
3.	The application to this court for permission is caught by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 which provides that, where an appeal is made to a county court in relation to any matter, and on hearing the appeal the court makes a decision in relation to that matter, no appeal may be made to the Court of Appeal from that decision, unless the Court of Appeal considers that (a) the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or (b) there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
4.	I have every sympathy with Mr. Infante who has put his point of view with attractive persuasion, but I cannot ignore the plain intention of Parliament, that this court should not entertain appeals from the county court which have already been tested by a full review conducted by the circuit judge. This is an unusual case. It is unsatisfactory that any final order should be made without hearing both the parties. I recognize the force of that complaint but, nonetheless, I do not consider that it would be right in principle to grant permission in this case. Accordingly, permission is refused.
Order: Application refused.