Brooks v Middleton

The court has jurisdiction under Rule 3.1(7) to vary or revoke orders, including orders that have purported to finalise litigation and orders made in the appellate process. That power is discretionary and should be exercised only where the interests of justice require it. In assessing those interests, the court may give substantial weight to unreasonable delay, the need for expedition and certainty, the staleness of proposed arguments, and the likelihood of further delay if permission is granted.

The applicant sought permission out of time to renew an application for permission to appeal against a County Court decision made on 15 March 2000. He also sought reinstatement, an extension of time and disclosure if permission were granted. An earlier application for permission had been refused by the County Court judge on 19 March 2000, and the Court of Appeal application had subsequently been dismissed by a Deputy Registrar. The dispute concerned the parties’ former shared home. The central issue was whether the court should reopen the previous orders and permit the appellate process to continue.

1. Application dismissed. The court refused permission to reinstate or renew the application, extend time or order disclosure.
2. Rule 3.1(7) confers jurisdiction to vary or revoke an order made under the Rules. In principle, that jurisdiction extends to an order purporting to finalise the litigation, the County Court judge’s refusal of permission and the Deputy Registrar’s dismissal of the Court of Appeal application.
3. The jurisdiction should be exercised only where the interests of justice require it. Litigation must be conducted with reasonable expedition at first instance and on appeal.
4. The applicant’s conduct had produced a tortuous and unsatisfactory history. More than a year had elapsed since the original decision, and the proposed points concerning figures, mistake in the form of the order and an allowance for rent were stale. Both parties were entitled to certainty.
5. Allowing the application would require consideration of its merits and, if permission were granted, would cause further substantial delay. In those circumstances reopening the orders was not in the interests of justice.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the application for permission to reinstate and renew the appeal application, extend time and obtain disclosure if permission were granted.
• County Court: made the decision under challenge on 15 March 2000 and refused permission to appeal on 19 March 2000.
• Court of Appeal Deputy Registrar: dismissed the subsequent application for permission to renew.