Jules Rimet Cup Ltd v The Football Association Ltd

An appeal may be adjourned where a pending committal or enforcement application could determine whether the underlying proceedings must be withdrawn, making the appeal unnecessary. The appellate court should avoid prejudging that issue. Delay and inconvenience to the court are relevant, but they do not prevent an adjournment where the appeal may fall away and no material prejudice is established. The appeal may be restored if the pending application does not resolve the matter.

Jules Rimet Cup Ltd appealed from a judgment and order of Mr Roger Wyand QC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Chancery Division, handed down on 18 October 2007. Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was listed for hearing.

The Football Association Ltd sought an adjournment pending a committal application in related proceedings. That application concerned compliance with a consent order under which withdrawal of the present proceedings was conditional on the Football Association bearing its own costs. If the committal application resulted in an order requiring withdrawal, the appeal would not proceed. The central issue was whether the appeal should await determination of that application.

1. The respondent’s application to adjourn was granted. The hearing listed for 2 or 3 October 2008 was vacated and the appeal was directed to be re-listed.
2. The related consent order required the Football Association to agree to bear its own costs before the appellant was required to withdraw the proceedings. The Football Association had delayed for several months before purporting to satisfy that condition. The court accepted that there was considerable force in the appellant’s argument that the delayed and incomplete offer might not entitle the Football Association to require withdrawal.
3. That issue was for determination on the pending committal application. Since the application appeared to require the judge to decide whether the consent order had been infringed, it would be inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to proceed on an assumption which might prejudge that question.
4. The possibility that the committal application would result in an order requiring withdrawal was material. If so, the appeal would fall away and there would be no point in hearing it. If not, the appeal could be restored.
5. The court criticised the lateness of the adjournment application and recognised the resulting inconvenience, including the loss of a hearing slot. Those considerations did not outweigh the need to avoid prejudging the related application, particularly since the appellant had not established any substantial prejudice.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The respondent’s application for an adjournment was granted. The appeal hearing was vacated and the appeal was to be re-listed.
2. Chancery Division: Mr Roger Wyand QC, sitting as a High Court judge, handed down judgment on 18 October 2007, granted permission to appeal and made a consequential costs order.