Hope v Carige

Permission to appeal may be refused where a claim has no real prospect of success. In a claim concerning goods seized under apparently lawful authority, the seizure may provide a complete answer to an allegation of unlawful interference, making it unnecessary to determine whether the goods were forgeries. The material question is whether the seized goods are sufficiently shown to be the same goods delivered to the defendant. Absolute certainty is not required. Late evidence will create a serious procedural irregularity only where there is a real prospect that further evidence would cast substantial doubt on it.

The claimant delivered 297 Italian treasury bonds to the defendant bank for verification and sought their return or their value. The bank pleaded that the bonds had been lawfully seized by the Italian police, later examined by the Italian Treasury and declared forgeries.

A Master struck out the claim. Curtis J dismissed the claimant’s appeal and admitted evidence of the Italian Treasury’s certification, served shortly before the hearing. The claimant sought permission to appeal, alleging serious procedural irregularity. The central issues were whether the late evidence should have been admitted and whether the evidence sufficiently connected the seized and examined bonds with those delivered to the bank.

1. Application refused. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was refused, with costs summarily assessed at £3,000 exclusive of VAT.
2. The admission by Curtis J of the Italian Treasury’s certification was a matter for him in light of the parties’ positions. Although the bank could be criticised for omitting the evidence from its original application and serving it immediately before the appeal hearing, the claimant had not positively disputed that the bonds were forgeries.
3. A serious procedural irregularity might have arisen if there had been a real prospect that the claimant could produce evidence, at the hearing or after an adjournment, casting substantial doubt on the certification. No such evidence or case was advanced.
4. The decisive point did not depend on proving that the bonds were forgeries. The bonds had been seized by the police under apparently lawful authority three days after delivery and remained subject to that seizure. That was a complete answer to the claim for unlawful interference with the claimant’s goods.
5. The remaining issue was identification. The documents sufficiently established that the bonds declared forgeries were those sent to the Italian Treasury under the Italian court’s order and those seized by the police. Absolute certainty was unnecessary, and the claim had no real prospect of success.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal against the order of Curtis J dated 25 October 2001 was refused, with costs summarily assessed at £3,000 exclusive of VAT.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Curtis J dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the order of Master Prebble dated 20 June 2001.
3. Master Prebble: struck out the claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of the court process.