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] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Baker -v- Auger [2012] JRC 080A (19 April 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2012/2012_080A.html Cite as: [2012] JRC 080A, [2012] JRC 80A |
||
[New search] [Help]
Debt - application for leave to appeal the decision of the petty debts court.
[2012]JRC080A
|
Before : |
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, sitting alone. |
|
Between |
Mark Andrew Baker |
Appellant |
|
And |
Wayne Auger |
Respondent |
Mr Baker did not appear.
Mr Auger did not appear.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. Mr Mark Baker has sought leave to appeal a judgment of the Petty Debts Court which was given in favour of Mr Wayne Auger. When I saw these papers I gave notice that I would hear Mr Baker in person at 2pm today, Thursday 19th April. The purpose of that was to give him the opportunity of explaining why he should be given leave to appeal when he was late applying for leave and, secondly, why leave should be given.
2. In terms of being late, the judgment which he seeks to appeal was given on 14th March and it appears from the material before me that the notice of appeal, although undated, was received at some point in April so therefore falls outside the seven day period provided for by the Rules.
3. However I will, for the time being, assume that Mr Baker had some good reason for being late in making his application for leave. It is clear from the judgment of the judge of the Petty Debts Court, Advocate Harris, that full reasons were given, Mr Harris having heard the evidence which was put before the court at that time. It was for him to make his assessment of the evidence that was put before him and in the usual way an Appellate Court is very reluctant to interfere in the decision on the facts which the lower court has reached. It will only do so if the lower court has misdirected itself as a matter of law or has reached a decision on the evidence which is unreasonable.
4. Having reviewed the judgment of Advocate Harris I cannot see that there is anything in his review of the evidence which appears to be unreasonable nor have I identified any point of law and so accordingly, although it might have been tempting to refuse leave on the basis that the appellant could not be bothered to turn up in Court to address me, I do not refuse it on that basis, I refuse it on the basis that I cannot see anything on the papers which suggests that leave ought to be given and Mr Baker has not turned up before me to try to persuade me otherwise.
5. The application for leave is therefore rejected.
