Druce v Druce

On an application for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant permission on specified issues while expressing a provisional view that another proposed ground has little merit. The court may also give consequential directions, including staying part of the order below, allocating the application costs to the appeal, and requiring an amended skeleton argument.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from an order of the High Court, Chancery Division, made by Mr Englehart QC. The proposed appeal concerned the construction of a 1976 conveyance, the effect of a Tomlin Order, and points pleaded in paragraph 11, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the reply. The respondent did not appear or have representation.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Aldous granted permission to appeal on the Tomlin point and on the issues pleaded in paragraph 11, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the reply.
2. Permission was also granted on the construction of the 1976 conveyance. Although Lord Justice Aldous expressed the provisional view that he thought little of that ground, it formed part of the history and was relevant to considering the Tomlin Order in context.
3. The application costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
4. Paragraph 5 of the judge’s order was stayed pending the appeal, and the applicant was given 14 days to lodge an amended skeleton argument.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 13 August 2002, permission to appeal was granted on the Tomlin point, the paragraph 11 issues, and the 1976 conveyance construction point. Paragraph 5 of the order below was stayed pending appeal.
• High Court, Chancery Division: An order was made by Mr Englehart QC. Its citation and substantive terms are not stated in the judgment.