Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) (No 2)

An appellate court may protect its process from abuse, provided that the essence of a litigant’s access to the court is not impaired. Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the common law do not confer an absolute right to an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal. After judgment, the court may correct typing errors, wrong references and similar minor mistakes, but it will not entertain renewed submissions on the merits. Once a related permission application has been determined, a continuing stay may be lifted where no sufficient reason remains for it.

This was an ancillary judgment following the Court of Appeal’s earlier judgment in the same proceedings, reported at [2004] EWCA Civ 639. The appellant made extensive written submissions seeking corrections and arguing that he had an absolute right to an oral hearing. The court considered those submissions, determined a related application for permission to appeal against a judgment of Peter Smith J, and addressed whether its earlier order should be drawn up and whether a stay on the sale of the appellant’s property should continue.

The judgment was delivered by Brooke LJ on behalf of the court.

1. Corrections after judgment. The court was willing to consider typing errors, wrong references and other minor corrections under the Practice Statement (Supreme Court) [1998] 1 WLR 825, 827. It accepted four corrections to the approved judgment, concerning the date of March 1992, the account of Mr Saner’s proposed assistance, the dates on which several defences were served, and the description of Mr Hinks’s successful summary judgment application. The court would not entertain renewed submissions on the merits.
2. Oral hearing and abuse of process. A court is entitled to protect its process from abuse, provided that the very essence of the litigant’s right of access is preserved. The appellant therefore had no absolute right to an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, at common law or otherwise. The court relied on Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) and Attorney-General v Ebert, cited respectively at [2003] EWCA Civ 1113, [49]-[50], and [2001] EWHC Admin 695, [36].
3. Final procedural orders. Having determined the related permission application, the court saw no reason to continue the stay on the sale of the property. It directed that the order made in the appellant’s absence on 21 May 2004 should be drawn up and sealed. The judgment was released from the normal prohibition on citation because it was ancillary to the earlier judgments.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Following its earlier judgment at [2004] EWCA Civ 639, the court allowed minor corrections, refused to reopen the merits, directed that the earlier order be drawn up and sealed, and lifted the stay on the sale of the property.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: The proceedings were before Lindsay J. No citation for the judgment appealed from was stated.