Whitby (An Infant Suing Eve Whitby Her Mother & Next Friend) v Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

[2001] EWCA Civ 1004

Case details

Case citations
[2001] EWCA Civ 1004
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
13 June 2001
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Contract Permission to appeal
Keywords
permission to appeal arguable case binding contract substantial difference in claim judicial discretion costs
Outcome
application granted (permission to appeal granted; no order for costs)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

At the permission stage, an appeal may proceed where the proposed grounds raise an arguable challenge to a material conclusion below. The court considered it arguable that no binding contract existed, contrary to the deputy judge’s view. It was also arguable that a difference of nearly £200,000 in the claim was sufficiently substantial to justify the exercise of discretion. Criticism of the reasons given below further supported granting permission. The court did not finally determine the contractual issue or the proper exercise of discretion.

Factual background

The defendant Trust applied for permission to appeal from a decision of a learned deputy judge. The claimant did not attend and was unrepresented. The proposed appeal concerned whether there had been a binding contract, contrary to the deputy judge’s conclusion, and whether a difference of nearly £200,000 in the claim was sufficiently substantial to justify the exercise of discretion. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the reasons given below for exercising discretion were open to criticism.

Held

Sir Murray Stuart-Smith gave the first judgment, with which Lord Justice Kay agreed.

  1. Permission granted. The court considered that there was an arguable case that no binding contract existed, contrary to the view taken by the learned deputy judge.
  2. The difference of nearly £200,000 in the claim was arguably sufficiently substantial to justify the exercise of discretion in favour of the application.
  3. There were grounds for considering that the reasons given by the deputy judge for exercising discretion as he did were open to criticism. That provided a further basis for allowing the proposed appeal to proceed.
  4. The court directed that the appeal be heard by two Lords Justices, with an estimate of half a day. There was no order for costs.

The court granted permission only. It did not determine the merits of the contractual issue or the ultimate exercise of discretion.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): granted the Trust permission to appeal from the decision of a learned deputy judge. The citation of the decision under appeal was not stated.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application granted (permission to appeal granted; no order for costs)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.