Channon v Channon

[2002] EWCA Civ 537

Case details

Case citations
[2002] EWCA Civ 537
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
15 April 2002
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Permission to appeal
Keywords
permission to appeal adjournment insufficiently precise application divorce proceedings ancillary relief case management
Outcome
application adjourned
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An insufficiently precise request for permission may justify refusal. The Court of Appeal nevertheless retains discretion to adjourn a permission application for a limited period where relevant developments in the court below may assist, particularly where the applicant’s circumstances warrant that opportunity. An adjournment does not grant permission or determine the merits.

Factual background

Robert Derek Channon, acting in person, sought permission to appeal an order made by Mr Recorder Tyson in the Bath County Court on 19 November 2001. The recorder had refused permission to make a further application intended to bring the applicant’s divorce to an end, because the request was insufficiently precise. The applicant’s difficulties followed related negligence proceedings against his former solicitors, which had resulted in judgment for approximately £65,000 plus costs. The central issue was whether the permission application should be determined immediately or adjourned to allow further developments in the court below.

Held

  1. Mr Recorder Tyson had refused the application because the proposed request was insufficiently precise to justify granting permission.
  2. Lord Justice Thorpe indicated that the application appeared likely to be without foundation. However, he recognised the applicant’s desperate circumstances and considered it appropriate to allow a short period for developments in the court of trial.
  3. The application for permission to appeal was therefore adjourned for three months. The adjournment was procedural and did not determine the merits or grant permission to pursue the proposed application.
  4. The post-judgment exchanges in the Court of Appeal on 5 March 2002, and the judgment, were directed to be transcribed at public expense and supplied to the court and the applicant.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 15 April 2002, the application for permission to appeal was adjourned for three months, with directions for transcription.
  • Bath County Court: On 19 November 2001, Mr Recorder Tyson refused permission to make the proposed further application because the request lacked sufficient precision.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application adjourned

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.