Dobbs v TLT Solicitors (A Firm)

On an application for permission to appeal in a complex dispute, the Court of Appeal may adjourn the application where the applicant is unrepresented and without legal advice, related proceedings are likely to resolve the issues shortly, and the adjournment causes no injustice to the respondent. The court may stay the costs order meanwhile, subject to liberty to apply for restoration or removal of the stay. An adjournment does not determine the merits of the proposed appeal.

The applicant sought permission to appeal and an extension of time against a judgment of His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC dated 13 September 2002. The judge had struck out the applicant’s claim for an injunction and his application for an interim injunction restraining the respondent solicitors from acting for or assisting a bank, a company and its receivers.

The applicant was also pursuing related proceedings against the bank and the receivers. Those proceedings were likely to reach an initial determination within about six months. The respondent solicitors had indicated that they were no longer acting for the receivers, who were separately represented. The central procedural question was whether the permission application should be determined immediately or adjourned pending resolution of the related proceedings.

Lord Justice Clarke adjourned the application for permission to appeal, including the application for an extension of time, for six months or until resolution of the issues between the applicant, the bank and the receivers, whichever was sooner.

1. The dispute was complex. The applicant had appeared in person and had not yet obtained legal advice. The related proceedings were likely to clarify or resolve the issues within the adjournment period. In those circumstances, an adjournment was the sensible course and caused no injustice to the respondent solicitors.
2. The court expressed no final view on the proposed substantive appeal. The applicant’s contention that the receivers owed him duties as guarantor, and that the solicitors consequently owed him a corresponding duty, appeared very doubtful. That preliminary view did not determine the issue.
3. The recital of background facts in the first-instance judgment was not exhaustive and should not be treated as a definitive statement of all matters relevant to the applicant’s separate proceedings.
4. The order for costs was stayed pending the adjourned application. The respondent solicitors had liberty to seek restoration of the permission application or removal of the stay on notice. If restored, the applicant was warned of the potential liability for costs.
5. Any resumed application should be heard by a court of two members, consisting of two Lords Justices or one Lord Justice and a High Court judge. The court gave no encouragement that permission would ultimately be granted and indicated that legal assistance from the Bar Pro Bono Unit would be helpful.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Mercantile Court: His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC, on 13 September 2002, struck out the claim for an injunction and the application for an interim injunction.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal and extension of time was adjourned for six months or until resolution of the related issues, whichever was sooner.