T G HOLDCROFT (HOLDINGS) LTD v MR M J KING [2000] UKEAT 119_00_1210
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellants MR CHRISTOPHER BAYLIS (of Counsel) Messrs Reeves & Co Solicitors 27b The Mansions 252 Old Brompton Road London SW5 9HW JUDGE REID QC : In this appeal there are two applications. One is an ex parte application for the matter to go to a full hearing. The other is an application, also at the moment ex parte, for leave to adduce further evidence. It seems to us that the outcome of the first of those applications may well be substantially influenced by the success or otherwise of the second of those applications and that the second of those applications is one which ought to be dealt with inter partes.[2]There is at present no evidence in support of the application to adduce further evidence and therefore in order to put things on a regular basis what we propose to do, having heard Counsel on behalf of the appellant, Holdcroft (Holdings) Ltd, and also having had the benefit of observations from Mr Leiper, Counsel on behalf of Mr King who is here in relation to Mr King's own appeal in the matter, is to make directions as to the further conduct of the application and the appeal.[3]The appellant will put in any evidence in support of its application to adduce further evidence on affidavit within 28 days. The respondent will put in any evidence in opposition to that application by affidavit within 28 days thereafter. Then when the matter can be heard, it should be listed for the application to adduce further evidence to be heard first and the ex parte application for leave for the appellant's appeal to go to a full hearing should be listed immediately following.[4]It may be that the question of whether or not the further evidence should be adduced will have a very substantial influence on the outcome of the application for the matter to go to a full hearing and, indeed, it may be that once that application for leave to adduce further evidence has been determined, the parties will be able to agree as to what thereafter should happen to the appellant's appeal, but that is entirely a matter for them, when they each have had the opportunity of seeing the other's evidence and when, in addition, they have had the opportunity of hearing what the tribunal has to say about the admissibility or otherwise of that further evidence.[5]In those circumstances, we adjourn these two applications to be relisted not less than 56 days hence. Initially, these cases should be listed for ½ a day. Obviously the parties must consider whether ½ a day is going to be enough. If it is not, the sooner they tell the listing office the better.