|[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 >> Parker v Hutchings  EWCA Civ 695 (26 April 2001)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 695
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
Thursday, 26th April 2001
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE LLOYD
|- v -|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent was not represented and did not attend
Crown Copyright ©
"The understanding is that it may apply to certain case management decisions and certain fast track decisions. I don't know if I could ask if your honour feels you have power to indicate that this was treated whether retroactively or not, because I think there is no order, as a multi track case, because I understand there are queries of that sort being raised by the civil appeals office of the Court of Appeal. It is difficult to know how it will be dealt with on appeal. I would understand this would go to the Court of Appeal, not a single judge, but I think it may require some indication from your honour. I can find nothing express in the rules whichdeals with it. I don't know if your honour has come across this point in the interim.
JUDGE JONES: The CPR were never applied, were they, and it was never allocated a track?
MR WALTERS: I have not seen any formal order which does so.
MR JEREMY: That is correct, your honour.
JUDGE JONES: I think that had it been allocated a track it would have been allocated to the multi track, would it not?
MR JEREMY: Absolutely, your honour, without any doubt.
JUDGE JONES: It was more than a day and, I am almost tired of saying it, it is a dispute about an entirely worthless piece of land and in that sense is of no significance having regard to the conduct of the litigation and the issues that arise and the length of my judgment. It is a matter for the multi track.
MR JEREMY: Undoubtedly, your honour, it would have been allocated.
MR WALTERS: Your honour, I agree entirely. It is just that obviously the matter will be raised and, of course, the damages at £500 may lead somebody to conclude otherwise, so I was grateful, I wanted an indication should that be raised, as I anticipate it will if the matter proceeds.
JUDGE JONES: No, I think it is entirely appropriate that it be considered as a multi track case. There is the injunctive relief I have granted and, of course, I declared the boundary."
"Subject to Articles 4 and 5 and to paragraph (2) an appeal shall lie from a decision of the County Court to the High Court."
"An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal where the decision to be appealed is (a) a final decision in a claim allocated by a court to the multi track under rules 12.7, 14.8 or 26.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998."
(b) is a case which is not relevant.
"(1) When proceedings come before a judge (whether at a hearing or on paper) for the first time on or after 26 April 1999, he may direct how the CPR are to apply to the proceedings and may disapply certain provisions of the CPR. He may also give case management directions (which may include allocating the proceedings to a case management track).
(2) The general presumption will be that the CPR will apply to the proceedings from then on unless the judge directs or this practice direction provides otherwise.
(4) When the first occasion on which existing proceedings are before a judge on or after 26 April 1999 is a trial or hearing of a substantive issue, the general presumption is that the trial or hearing will be conducted having regard to the CPR."
" ..... it is entirely appropriate that it be considered as a multi track case."