1999/68 - Snell v Beadle [1999] UR 68 (22 April 1999)

The successful appeal - decided before the plenary Court on 18 January 1999, [1999.008] - and brought by the Defendant/Appellant against the Order of the Royal Court of 4 February 1998, whereby it was adjudged that a written agreement to allow the Plaintiff/Respondent to exercise vehicular rights across the strip of land separating the Plaintiffs two properties, ‘Abalone’ and ‘Broadlands’, was freely entered into by the Defendant/Appellant.

The grant by the plenary Court on 18 January 1999, of the application of the Plaintiff/Respondent under Article 14 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961, and under Rule 2 of the Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order, 1982 for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, conditional upon:

(a)the Plaintiff/Respondents paying to the Judicial Greffier the sum of ten thousand pounds (£10,000) within three months of the date hereof by way of security for the costs of the appeal, in such form as the Judicial Greffier shall require; and

(b)the Plaintiff/Respondents transmitting the Record (as defined in Rule 1 of the Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order, 1982) within the said three month period to the Registrar of the Privy Council.

APPLICATION BY THE PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE SAID PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOR A FURTHER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT.

THE BAILIFF: This is an application by the respondent in this appeal for an extension of one month to the time set by the Court of Appeal in its Order of 18 January 1999, to fulfil two conditions set by the Court at that time.

On that day the Court granted the respondent leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council subject to two conditions. The first condition was that the respondent should pay to the Judicial Greffier the sum of £10,000 within three months of the date of the Order by way of security for the costs of the appeal. The second condition was that the respondent should transmit the record as defined in the Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order, 1982 within the three month period to the Registrar of the Privy Council.

Mr Kelleher for the appellant opposed the making of any order extending time on two grounds. The first ground was that I did not have the jurisdiction to make the order. The second ground was that it would not be just in all the circumstances to grant the extension.

I am satisfied that the Court of Appeal does have jurisdiction to extend the time limit laid down in the conditions attached to the Order granting leave to appeal.

So far as the merits of the application are concerned time is pressing and I cannot do justice to the arguments which have been addressed to me by both counsel. I shall therefore refer to only one authority drawn to my attention by counsel for the appellant and that is an extract from the judgment of Ackner LJ in Palata Investments Ltd & Ors -v- Burt & Sinfield Ltd & Ors [1985] 1 WLR 942 CofA. In that judgment Ackner LJ said:

"….we expressed the opinion that in cases where the delay was very short and there was an acceptable excuse for the delay, as a general rule the appellant should not be deprived of his right of appeal and so no question of the merits of the appeal will arise. We wish to emphasise that the discretion which fell to be exercised is unfettered, and should be exercised flexibly with regard to the facts of the particular case. No doubt in some cases it may be material to have regard to the merits of the appeal; because it may be wrong, and indeed an unkindness to the appellant himself, to extend his time for appealing, after he has allowed the time to elapse, to enable him to pursue a hopeless appeal."

It was conceded in this case that there had been no undue delay in making this application which was indeed lodged before the three month period set by the Court of Appeal had expired.

Mr Kelleher was critical of the lack of detail in the affidavit supporting the application and it appears to me that in some respects that criticism was justified. This is, however, a case raising important points of law in relation to the law of property. With some hesitation because, as I have said, the reasons put forward for the failure to comply with the order of 18 January have been less than overwhelmingly compelling, I am prepared to extend the time limit, set at that time.

My decision is that the time limits set by the Court of Appeal on 18 January should be extended to this extent: the respondent shall pay to the Judicial Greffier the sum of £10,000 by close of business on Friday 23 April, 1999. The respondent shall transmit the record to the Registrar of the Privy Council within three weeks from today’s date; that is to say by Thursday, 13 May 1999. If the respondent complies with those conditions he may apply for final leave to appeal.

Forster -v- Harbours & Airport Committee & MR Lanyon (6^th April, 1990) Jersey Unreported CofA; (1990) JLR 82 CofA

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/68 - Snell v Beadle [1999] UR 68 (22 April 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/68.html Cite as: [1999] UR 68

Jersey Unreported Judgments