Bingham v Pieters

An appellate court need not simply permit an applicant to withdraw applications after the hearing has begun. Where withdrawal could suggest that the applications remain undetermined and permit a future attempt to revive or restore them, the court may require consent to dismissal or determine the applications on the submissions already made. If the applications are unsupported, they may be dismissed or refused with costs.

Andrew Bingham made applications for permission to appeal, an extension of time for appealing, and amendment of the Appellant’s Notice, arising from proceedings in the Central London County Court before His Honour Judge Cotran. After the hearing had commenced, counsel sought to withdraw all three applications. The Court of Appeal was concerned whether the applications should simply be withdrawn or instead determined or dismissed so that their procedural status could not be revisited. The applicant’s written submissions and skeleton arguments were considered.

1. The applications for permission to appeal, an extension of time for appealing and amendment of the Appellant’s Notice were dismissed. The operative order recorded them as refused.
2. The court was not minded simply to permit withdrawal. It considered that doing so might leave the applications apparently undetermined and could lead to a future application to revive or restore them.
3. The court therefore offered two alternatives: the applicant could consent to dismissal, or the court could proceed to determine the applications on the submissions advanced in support of them.
4. Neither course having been adopted, the court treated the applications as before it for determination. Having heard the submissions and read the skeleton arguments, including material prepared by the applicant in person, it concluded that each application must be dismissed.
5. The applications were dismissed or refused with costs, subject to detailed assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the applications for permission to appeal, an extension of time for appealing and amendment of the Appellant’s Notice, with costs subject to detailed assessment.
2. Central London County Court proceedings before His Honour Judge Cotran formed the underlying context. The lower court’s decision citation and details were not stated.