Din v Ahmed

[2002] EWCA Civ 625

Summary

An application for permission to appeal may be adjourned where the applicant requires an opportunity to obtain legal advice and consider whether the pleaded case should be amended. The court may direct that the relisted application be heard by a two-judge constitution, including a High Court judge.

Factual background

Mohammad Din applied for permission to appeal from proceedings in Cardiff District Registry before His Honour Judge Moseley QC, sitting as a High Court judge. The applicant appeared in person with assistance from a Mackenzie Friend. The Court of Appeal considered whether the application should proceed immediately, in circumstances where the applicant wished to obtain legal advice and review his pleaded case.

Held

Lord Justice Judge gave the judgment of the court.

  1. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned. The applicant wished to obtain legal advice, particularly on whether his particulars of claim required further amendment.
  2. If permission to amend the particulars of claim was required when the application was relisted, the applicant was directed to notify the court in writing of the proposed amended pleading and the intended application.
  3. The matter was to be relisted before a two-judge constitution. One of the judges could be a High Court judge.
  4. There was no order for costs.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

Available to signed-in members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal from proceedings in Cardiff District Registry was adjourned. The application was to be relisted before a two-judge constitution.

Appeal route

  1. Appealed fromNot stated in the judgmentThis appealapplication adjourned
  2. This judgment [2002] EWCA Civ 625 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Key cases cited

Available to signed-in members.

Cases citing this case

Available to signed-in members.