ANDREW PIERS COURTAULD RAYNER v and: [2002] EWCA Civ 1090
[1]Monday 15 July 2002 LORD JUSTICE MANCE:We are minded to give the applicant permission to appeal on the basis that there is residual importance in the point. Having looked at the merits and in the light of the fact that(a) there is a disagreement between first instance authorities and(b) the first and the second courts were not of the same view in this particular case, it seems to me that the threshold is overcome in respect, I would say, probably of both limbs. But whether that is so or not, the importance, residual as it is, seems to justify the appeal.[2]For my part, I would only add the devout wish that the costs be not as much as has been suggested on the other side. I have borne in mind Mr Lloyd's witness statement. For an issue of this nature it would, it seems to me, be most unfortunate if in the English courts it took that amount of costs to resolve a dispute at the third tier level, by which time the jurisdictional issue raised has surely been refined to a point where it is a matter of reading skeleton arguments, hearing relatively brief oral argument and forming a view.LORD JUSTICE LATHAM:I agree.
ORDER
Application to appeal allowed. Appeal to be heard by three Lords Justices with a time estimate of half a day. Application to adduce further evidence adjourned to the full court. The respondents to file any further evidence within two months. Order for costs stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal. (Order not part of approved judgment)
Cited in 1 later judgment