Pumperninks Of Piccadilly Limited v Land Securities Plc

Expedition of an appeal is discretionary. The guidelines in Unilever Plc v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd identify circumstances in which expedition will ordinarily be appropriate, but they are not exhaustive. In an unusual case, the court may order expedition where justice and practical considerations require it, particularly where delay would cause substantial prejudice to one party and expedition would cause no corresponding injustice to the other.

The claimant appealed from a decision of the Central London County Court. Two applications were made in the Court of Appeal. The claimant sought to join the companies said to be the true respondents, following an oversight by its solicitors. The respondent sought expedition of the appeal.

The tenancy concerned a small part of a building being redeveloped by the landlord. The parties accepted that, under section 64 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the tenancy would continue for three months after final disposal of the appeal if the appeal failed. The central issue was whether the appeal should be expedited despite the ordinary guidance governing expedition applications.

1. The application to join Shaftesbury (Piccadilly) (No 1) Ltd and Shaftesbury (Piccadilly) (No 2) Ltd was granted. The judge had intended any appeal to proceed between the correct parties, and the failure to join them resulted from an oversight.

2. The application for expedition was also granted. The court considered the guidelines stated by the Master of the Rolls in Unilever Plc v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 243. Those guidelines describe cases in which expedition should ordinarily be arranged, including threatened loss of a livelihood, business or home, irreparable loss, futility of the appeal, delay affecting numerous cases, divergent practice, or serious detriment to public administration.

3. The guidelines were not exhaustive. They expressed a general principle and did not prevent expedition in a case falling outside the listed categories. This was a most unusual case. If the appeal succeeded, the claimant’s tenancy would continue. If it failed, the tenancy would end three months after the Court of Appeal’s decision. By contrast, delay could cause the landlord substantial financial loss, for which the claimant could not be made liable.

4. The appeal was directed to be heard by three Lords Justices not before 1 February and, if possible, before the end of March. The claimant was ordered to pay £3,000 costs, and service of an amended notice was dispensed with.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the applications to join the correct respondents and to expedite the appeal from the Central London County Court.