Barnes v Woolwich Plc

An appellate court may determine an application in the applicant’s absence where there is no proper basis for an adjournment and the applicant could have attended. The refusal or grant of an adjournment is a matter for the judge’s discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere without an identifiable error or other proper ground. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no arguable basis and would be bound to fail.

Peter Michael Barnes sought permission to appeal against two orders arising from his bankruptcy. Blackburne J had dismissed applications for a stay of the bankruptcy and for payment of money by the trustee into escrow. Hart J had refused an adjournment of Mr Barnes’s appeal against orders made by Registrar Baister, heard that appeal, and dismissed it.

Mr Barnes was absent from the Court of Appeal and requested an adjournment, referring to alleged fraud, criminal investigations and other complaints. The central issues were whether the applications should be adjourned, whether the refusal of an adjournment by Hart J was open to challenge, and whether there was any arguable basis for appealing the substantive orders.

1. Applications heard in the applicant’s absence. Lord Justice Jonathan Parker found no basis for adjourning the applications. He was not satisfied that Mr Barnes could not have attended to present them and identified no proper basis on which either application could later be reinstated.
2. Adjournment. Hart J’s refusal to adjourn the hearing to enable Mr Barnes to obtain representation or prepare further material was a matter within his discretion. The Court of Appeal could identify no ground justifying interference with that exercise of discretion.
3. Substantive challenges. Mr Barnes’s complaints invited the court to revisit matters that had already been considered carefully on several occasions. Having considered his submissions, Parker LJ found no arguable basis for challenging the judgments of Registrar Baister, Blackburne J or Hart J.
4. Disposition. The proposed appeals were entirely without substance and bound to fail. Permission to appeal was refused in both applications. The applications were dismissed.

• High Court, Chancery Division: Blackburne J dismissed applications for a stay of the bankruptcy and for payment of money into escrow on 8 June 2000.
• High Court: Hart J refused an adjournment, dismissed Mr Barnes’s appeal against orders made by Registrar Baister, and refused permission to appeal on 23 June 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 July 2001, permission to appeal was refused in both applications and the applications were dismissed.