Woodman v Tracey

An appeal dismissed for failure to comply with procedural directions may be reinstated where the circumstances make that appropriate. Relevant considerations include the appellant’s continuing intention to appeal, difficulties arising from acting in person, lack of assistance from solicitors, and whether the underlying subject matter remains capable of preservation. Here, reinstatement was appropriate because the property had not been sold and the appellant’s evidence explained his non-compliance. The court dealt only with reinstatement. Any issue concerning an extension of time was reserved.

His Honour Judge Poulton, sitting in the Canterbury County Court, granted Mrs Anne Woodman a declaration that property formerly shared with Mr David Tracey was held by Mr Tracey on trust for them jointly. The judge granted permission to appeal, observing that the issues concerning constructive trust and illegality merited consideration by the Court of Appeal.

An application connected with setting down the appeal was dismissed after Mr Tracey failed to comply with an order requiring appropriate bundles to be filed. Costs were subsequently ordered. Mr Tracey, acting in person, applied to reinstate the appeal. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether reinstatement was appropriate in the circumstances.

Application allowed. The appeal was reinstated. The court considered only the reinstatement issue. Any question whether an extension of time was required was reserved.

1. Master Venne’s order required appropriate bundles to be filed by 4.30 pm on 20 September, failing which the relevant application would stand dismissed. Following non-compliance, the application was dismissed and costs were summarily assessed. The present application sought to undo that procedural consequence.
2. The court accepted Mr Tracey’s evidence in summary. He had always intended to appeal and expected his solicitors to conduct the appeal. They had not assisted him and had retained the papers because he owed them £500. He was then left as a litigant in person and found the appeal papers difficult to understand, which contributed to his failure to comply with the court’s orders.
3. The court treated those circumstances as relevant to whether reinstatement was appropriate. A further important consideration was that the property had not yet been sold. Although a county court order had directed that it be placed on the market, that order had not yet taken effect in the sense that the property remained unsold.

Because the property remained available and the appellant had given an accepted explanation for the procedural default, this was an appropriate case in which to reinstate the appeal. The formal order was: Application for reinstatement allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 June 2001, the application for reinstatement was allowed and the appeal was reinstated. [2001] EWCA Civ 988
• Canterbury County Court: His Honour Judge Poulton granted Mrs Woodman a declaration that the property was held on trust for the parties jointly and granted permission to appeal.
• Procedural history: An application relating to the appeal was dismissed after non-compliance with an order requiring bundles to be filed. Costs were subsequently ordered. Mr Tracey then applied for reinstatement.