Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd

A first-instance court retains jurisdiction over a judgment until the order giving effect to it has been drawn up and sealed. That jurisdiction may include hearing a late application for permission to appeal, provided the application is made within the relevant period and the court considers it appropriate to reconvene. The power is discretionary and requires a good reason, particularly where the application could have been made at the original hearing. Permission must be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.

Multiplex sought declarations concerning the contractual mechanism for extending time under its subcontract with Honeywell. Following a ruling refusing specific disclosure of confidential settlement documents, Honeywell did not seek permission to appeal at the hearing on 24 January 2007. It later applied for permission before the order had been drawn up and sealed.

The issues were whether the court retained jurisdiction to hear that application after the original hearing had ended and, if so, whether permission should be granted.

1. Jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction over its ruling of 24 January 2007 until the order giving effect to it had been drawn up and sealed. The principles summarised in Charlesworth v Relay Roads Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 230 were adopted.
2. That continuing jurisdiction included power under CPR rule 52.3(2) and paragraph 4.3B of the Practice Direction to treat the later hearing as a continuation of the original hearing and determine an application for permission to appeal. The power could be exercised shortly after judgment, but there had to be good reason to reconvene when the application could have been made at the original hearing.
3. The court rejected the submission that the later application created uncertainty about the time for appealing. The ordinary 21-day period ran from the date judgment was given. If permission was refused, any further application had to be made to the Court of Appeal in the appellant’s notice.
4. Merits. The terms of the settlement agreement between Multiplex and Wembley National Stadium Ltd were irrelevant to the issues in the time-at-large litigation. Their possible relevance to damages or contractual inspection rights did not make them relevant to the ruling under appeal.
5. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard. Permission to appeal was therefore refused. The ruling was not a final order, an appeal lay to the Court of Appeal, and any further application for permission had to be made there.

First-instance decision on Honeywell’s application for permission to appeal. Permission was refused; any further application was to be made to the Court of Appeal.