Havard v Howells

An application to renew an appeal or other application in the Court of Appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the applicant, having been given the opportunity to attend, fails to appear. The court may also dismiss an application where the underlying proceedings were struck out below as incomprehensible and the challenge was brought substantially out of time.

The claimant sought to challenge a judgment of a Deputy Circuit Judge in the Telford County Court, who had upheld a District Judge’s decision to strike out proceedings against solicitors because the proceedings were incomprehensible.

The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal approximately 15 months after the Deputy Circuit Judge’s order. The application was rejected on paper, but the claimant exercised her right to renew it at an oral hearing. She did not appear, and the court determined the application in her absence.

1. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant did not appear to exercise her right to renew the application.
2. The court recorded that the challenge concerned a County Court judgment made on 11 November 1998 and had not been brought until 21 January 2000. The court did not need to determine the substantive challenge because the applicant’s failure to attend was sufficient to dispose of the renewed application.
3. Order: application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The claimant’s renewed application was dismissed for want of prosecution after she failed to appear.
• Telford County Court: A Deputy Circuit Judge upheld the District Judge’s striking out of proceedings as incomprehensible.
• District Judge: Proceedings brought against a firm of solicitors were struck out as incomprehensible.