Manison v Attorney General & Anor

Permission to appeal, and an extension of time needed to reopen very old proceedings, should be refused where the proposed appeal seeks to revisit issues already decided and the evidence does not disclose a proper basis for doing so. Difficulties in obtaining supportive legal advice are insufficient. Fresh evidence may justify a further application, but its existence alone does not overcome substantial delay or establish permission to appeal.

Norman Michael Manison sought permission to appeal orders made in the Queen’s Bench Division in 1989. One order dismissed his appeal against Master Prebble’s 1988 order striking out proceedings against the Attorney General; the other refused an extension of time to reinstate that appeal. The underlying proceedings concerned allegations that court documents had been replaced by forged documents before an earlier trial. The applicant relied on material obtained from the court file and a letter from a retired judge, arguing that these disclosed criminality and procedural irregularity. The central issue was whether that material and the history of the proceedings justified extending time and reopening the issues.

1. Application refused. The court could not properly extend time to allow the proposed appeal to continue.
2. The proposed proceedings sought to reopen issues which had already been decided, including the underlying allegations concerning documents used at the earlier trial. The Court of Appeal had previously concluded that there was no prospect of a successful appeal from that trial decision.
3. The dispute was exceptionally old. The alleged wrongdoing dated from 1984, the present proceedings began in 1987, and the orders challenged were made in 1989. The further delay was material, particularly since the applicant had possessed the later evidence and legal advice for many years.
4. The letter from the retired judge and the other material did not provide a sufficient basis for permission. Nor did the applicant’s extensive but unsuccessful efforts to obtain supportive legal advice justify reopening the matter.
5. The court did not determine whether the material established criminal conduct. It explained that it could not advise the applicant or comment on any possible criminal complaint. Fresh evidence could support a further application, but the present application remained refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal the 1989 High Court orders refused in [2002] EWCA Civ 1727.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Master Prebble struck out the writ and statement of claim in 1988. Turner J dismissed the appeal subject to a condition concerning evidence of attempts to obtain legal advice. Phillips J later refused an extension of time to reinstate the appeal.