|[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 >> Tracy & Anor v Jones  EWCA Civ 925 (24 May 2001)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 925
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN)
Thursday, 24th May 2001
B e f o r e :
|EDWARD TRACY AND MARY DOROTHY TRACY|
|- v -|
|MARGARET ELIZABETH JONES|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040 Fax No: 0171-831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 24th May 2001
"I have raised before me a question relating to an interlocutory order which I made as long ago as the 20th July 1992. I had before me an application for an interlocutory mandatory injunction made by the Claimants. I made an order dismissing that application and refusing the Claimants' leave to appeal (I also transferred to the case to Llangefni County Court). The Court of Appeal likewise refused leave to appeal. The issue raised is what order I made as to costs. The order that I would have made in the ordinary course would have been an order that the unsuccessful Claimants do pay the Defendant's costs of the application in any event. It is practically inconceivable that I would have ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimants' costs of the Claimants' unsuccessful application. Yet the form of order drawn up by the Court contained a direction that the Defendant should indeed pay the costs. The question raised before me is whether this must have been a slip. A clear and obvious (and indeed in my view only) explanation is that this is so and that the registrar or associate who drew up the order made a mistake. This conclusion is supported by the contemporaneous handwritten note of Mr Lloyd Williams of R Gordon Robert Laurie & Co, the letter dated the 29th July 1992 written by Mr Williams to the Defendant and the endorsement on Counsel's brief dated 6th August 1992.
When the matter was originally raised before me, I expressed this as my provisional view, but I invited the Claimants if they so wished to make submissions to me either orally or in writing. The Claimants chose to make them in writing, and I received submissions in writing from both parties. I have carefully read the submissions of the Claimants. I can see nothing which provides any basis for taking a different view. The fact that the error in the order was not adverted to by the learned Lord Justices in the Court of Appeal does not help; it was not a matter of relevance to their decision.
In short there was a slip in the order. It has apparently subsequently been corrected, but in case any question exists as to this correction I have jurisdiction even now to correct it and do so and I therefore direct that the order should read that the Claimants should pay the Defendant's costs of the application in any event.
I further direct that this decision should be placed on the court file in Llangefni County Court."
"By a letter faxed to me dated 24th January 2001, Mr and Mrs Tracy wrote to complain that I had made my decision in this matter before I had received their submissions in reply. I regret when I gave my decision, I did not have in mind that there was an arrangement reached entitling Mr and Mrs Tracy to make further submissions in writing up and until the 28th January 2001. If I had had that matter in mind, I would of course have deferred giving my decision until then. On receipt of the letter dated the 24th January 2001, I instructed my clerk to inform Mr & Mrs Tracy that in view of this oversight I intended to reconsider my decision in the light of their further submissions and to invite them to make these further submissions. On the 24th January 2001 my clerk accordingly telephoned Mrs Tracy and told her that that I would review my decision in the light of their further submissions and invited her to let me have them. Mrs Tracy declined that offer and said that they wished to proceed with their application to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In view of the position taken by Mr & Mrs Tracy, I am disabled from reviewing my decision in the light of any further submissions from them and I must accordingly confirm my previous decision.
As regards their application to me for permission to appeal, I refuse that application. My reason is that they have no arguable grounds for an appeal."
"Proceedings under section 7(1)(a) in respect of a judicial act may be brought only-
(a) by exercising a right of appeal;
(b) on an application... for a judicial review; or
(c) in such other forum as may be prescribed by rules."