Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc v Ashford

A court should not fix an appeal hearing date merely to put a party in terrorem or to pressure progress in mediation. Where both parties seek an adjournment to mediate, the court may allow that opportunity while retaining control through progress reports and a clear point for further directions. The appeal remains confined to the ground for which permission was granted. An application to adduce further evidence must relate to that ground and be supported by the proposed evidence, an explanation and submissions. A party asserting that a further application for permission to appeal remains outstanding must identify it and explain why the earlier order was not final.

This was a directions hearing in an appeal by Anthony George Ashford from a judgment of Medway County Court, given by His Honour Judge Russell-Vick QC. Laws LJ had granted permission to appeal after an oral hearing, but only on one ground.

Both parties sought an adjournment to pursue mediation, although correspondence had also sought a hearing date. The Court of Appeal had to determine the appropriate case-management directions, including whether to fix a hearing date, how to control the mediation process, whether further evidence could be sought, and whether a further application for permission to appeal had been left unresolved.

1. The matter was adjourned without a hearing date being fixed. It would not be fair to other litigants or appropriate case management to fix a date merely to put the respondent in terrorem or to make it more willing to mediate.
2. Because both parties sought an opportunity to mediate, an adjournment was appropriate. The court should nevertheless retain control of the case and should not allow the matter to drift. Each party was directed to provide a written progress report by 3 June stating whether mediation had succeeded or failed. The matter was reserved to Lord Justice Pill for directions only, and a hearing date would be fixed shortly afterwards if necessary.
3. The passage of time did not materially prejudice Mr Ashford because he remained in possession of the property and had made no contractual payments since 1998. The interests of other litigants also required the court to avoid repeated applications concerning the same appeal.
4. Permission to appeal had been granted on only one ground. The Court was therefore seised only of that matter. Any application to adduce further evidence had to relate to the permitted ground. Within 42 days Mr Ashford was required to provide the proposed evidence together with his explanation and submissions. The respondent would have 21 days to reply.
5. Lord Justice Pill regarded Laws LJ’s decision on the permission application as final, but permitted Mr Ashford to submit, within 42 days, any further application and a statement explaining why he contended that the order was not final. The respondent would again have 21 days to reply. The appeal was accordingly adjourned for further directions.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Laws LJ granted permission to appeal after an oral hearing. At the present directions hearing, the appeal was adjourned without a hearing date, to allow mediation and require written progress reports.
• Medway County Court: The appeal arose from a judgment of His Honour Judge Russell-Vick QC.