Blake v Harding & Rowe (A Firm)

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the court may adjourn the application where the applicant’s material raises points requiring clarification of the evidence at trial and the basis for a challenged finding. The adjourned hearing should be on notice to the respondent where the respondent’s participation is needed. The court may invite the respondent to provide legal representation and a skeleton argument addressing the proposed grounds. An adjournment for that purpose does not determine whether permission to appeal should ultimately be granted.

Mr Blake brought a professional negligence action against Harding & Rowe, a firm of solicitors. Mr Justice Silber dismissed the action in March 2001. Permission to appeal was refused on paper on 25 May 2001. On the renewed application, Mr Blake pursued only the proposed appeal concerning the alleged instruction to transfer the Lee Bay Hotel car park from Gala Edge into his own name. He relied on documentary bundles and other documents to challenge the judge’s rejection of his evidence. The central issue was whether the material required clarification from the respondent before the court could determine permission.

The renewed application was adjourned for a further hearing on notice to Harding & Rowe. The court did not decide the merits of the proposed appeal or whether permission should ultimately be granted.

1. Mr Blake challenged a factual finding made by Mr Justice Silber concerning whether instructions had been given to transfer the Lee Bay Hotel car park into Mr Blake’s name. The court considered the documents placed before it, but they were not the complete trial bundles.
2. The material raised points that required discussion with a representative of Harding & Rowe. Further clarification was needed concerning the evidence available to the judge at trial and the basis on which Mr Blake’s evidence had been rejected.
3. In those circumstances, the appropriate course was to adjourn the permission application rather than determine it on the incomplete material and in the respondent’s absence.
4. The court stated that it would be assisted if Harding & Rowe attended the adjourned hearing with legal representation and lodged, in advance, a skeleton argument responding to the proposed notice of appeal and written submissions.

The application was adjourned to be heard by the same constitution. A transcript was ordered to be supplied to Mr Blake at public expense.

• High Court: Mr Justice Silber dismissed Mr Blake’s professional negligence action in March 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused on paper on 25 May 2001. The renewed application concerning the car park claim was then adjourned on 13 June 2001 for a further hearing on notice to Harding & Rowe.