Marya v Southall Properties Ltd

Where an applicant seeks to reinstate or renew an application decided in his absence, he must provide both a satisfactory explanation for that absence and grounds showing that the decision overlooked a matter which could have affected the result. A late request for an adjournment to obtain legal representation will not ordinarily justify delaying the application where no arguable grounds have been identified. A single Lord Justice dealing with reinstatement need not direct a hearing before three Lords Justices merely because the applicant seeks a fuller hearing.

Southall Properties Ltd obtained a judgment debt against Mr Marya and presented a bankruptcy petition. After applications concerning amendment of the bankruptcy order were refused by District Judge Sturdy and Mr Lewison QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, Mr Marya sought permission to appeal.

Rix LJ refused permission in his absence on 20 July 2000. Robert Walker LJ later refused to reinstate that application, also in his absence. Mr Marya then applied again for reinstatement. He sought an adjournment because solicitors had agreed to act only the day before, and alternatively asked that the matter be heard by three Lords Justices. The central issue was whether there were sufficient grounds to reinstate the permission application.

1. Application refused. The applicant had not supplied the required grounds for reinstatement. Where an application is renewed after an order made in the applicant’s absence, he must give a satisfactory explanation for the absence and identify grounds supporting the contention that the decision overlooked a matter which would have influenced the result.
2. The same principle applied whether the application came before a Lord Justice or the Master. The court was entitled to decline reinstatement until both the explanation and a proper basis for the proposed grounds had been provided.
3. The request for an adjournment was refused. The matter had been outstanding for nearly a year, and the applicant had approached solicitors only on the day before the hearing. No grounds had been put forward which a legal representative might advance on his behalf.
4. The alternative request for a hearing before three Lords Justices was also refused. The court was dealing only with an application to reinstate an application for permission to appeal, and permission had already been considered by two members of the court. It was therefore not appropriate to direct a three-judge hearing.
5. The application to reinstate the permission application was refused.

• High Court, Chancery Division: Mr Lewison QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, dismissed an appeal from District Judge Sturdy’s refusal to amend the bankruptcy order on 31 March 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Rix LJ refused permission to appeal on 20 July 2000. Robert Walker LJ later refused to reinstate the permission application on 24 November 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lady Justice Arden refused the further application to reinstate the permission application on 27 March 2001.