Pennington & Anor v Waine & Ors

Permission to appeal should be granted where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success. Time for seeking an oral hearing may be extended where circumstances explain the failure to apply within the prescribed period. In unusually complex and interconnected litigation, the court may adjourn a permission application to an inter partes hearing before a full court where a fuller overview is needed, even though the court cannot presently conclude that the appeal has a real prospect of success. Directions may require the parties to provide an up-to-date account of the underlying administration and related proceedings.

Two applications arose from disputes concerning Ada Crampton’s estate and shares in Crampton Bros (Coopers) Limited. In application 2000/3721, Brian Hurst, claiming through Harold Crampton Senior, sought an extension of time and permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Maddocks on 19 July and 30 November 2000 concerning registration of the executors as holders of 1,500 shares. Later proceedings concerning an undisclosed stock transfer form and pre-emption rights were relied on as new facts.

In application 2002/1382, Mr Hurst, as assignee of Stephen Crampton’s interest, sought permission to appeal His Honour Judge Hegarty’s judgment of 12 June 2002 concerning the beneficial ownership of proceeds from 1,100 shares bequeathed by will. The central issues were whether either application should proceed and how the connected litigation should be managed.

1. Application 2000/3721. The court granted an extension of time for making the application for an oral hearing. The circumstances justified the delay. In particular, later judgments had revealed matters not previously known, including the existence of the stock transfer form concerning 400 shares and its possible effect on Harold Crampton Senior’s pre-emption rights. The proposed appeal had a real prospect of success, so permission to appeal was granted.
2. Application 2002/1382. The court was unable to conclude that the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success. It nevertheless declined to refuse permission at that stage. The litigation concerning the estate was unusually complex, involved several related proceedings and had not yet been considered by any single court with a complete overview. It was therefore appropriate to stand the application over for an inter partes hearing before a full court.
3. Case management. The application in 2002/1382 was to be listed immediately after the hearing of application 2000/3721, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted. The parties were expected to provide a full and up-to-date account of the administration of the estate and the related proceedings so that the full court could assess the issues in their proper context.
4. The formal orders were: permission to appeal granted in 2000/3721; the application for permission in 2002/1382 adjourned on notice to the full court, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted; and both matters listed together with a two-day time estimate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was granted in application 2000/3721. The application in 2002/1382 was adjourned on notice to the full court.
• High Court, Chancery Division: His Honour Judge Hegarty delivered judgment on 12 June 2002 concerning the ownership of proceeds from testamentary shares.
• High Court, Chancery Division: His Honour Judge Maddocks made orders on 19 July and 30 November 2000 concerning registration of the executors as holders of the shares. Permission to appeal was later refused on the papers by Lady Justice Arden on 15 March 2001.