Jones v Dabholkar

Where a party to an appeal is subject to a recent bankruptcy order and is temporarily unable to pursue the appeal, the court should not dismiss the appeal merely for procedural convenience if the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. The court may adjourn the appeal to allow insolvency-related developments to take place. It may give the other party liberty to apply for dismissal after a specified date and direct that the Official Receiver be notified.

This was a second appeal from Luton County Court concerning the summary assessment of costs where the potential receiving party had not served a statement of costs under the Costs Practice Direction. Permission had been granted because the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice concerning the proposed “no schedule, no costs” approach.

Shortly before the hearing, the judgment records that a bankruptcy order had been made against the party seeking an adjournment, subject to a temporary stay and intended challenge. That party did not attend the hearing. The central procedural question was whether the appeal should be dismissed or adjourned while the bankruptcy position was clarified.

1. The appeal was adjourned. The court declined to dismiss it summarily because the threshold question was whether the appellant’s case had a reasonable prospect of success. The court concluded that it did, while expressing no final view on the likely outcome.
2. The recent bankruptcy order placed the appellant in a state of limbo. Applying insolvency-law principles, the court considered that the appellant was not presently able to pursue the appeal while the order remained extant, even though a stay and a possible challenge were in prospect.
3. The court considered that the circumstances were not on all fours with Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms and Others [2008] EWHC 723 (Ch). The appeal therefore should not simply be dismissed by reference to proportionality, the modest sum at stake, or the time already consumed by the litigation.
4. To protect the respondent’s position, the court granted liberty to restore an application for dismissal, but not before 1 July. The Official Receiver was to be served with the order and an expedited transcript so that the position could be considered if the bankruptcy order remained in force.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The second appeal was adjourned. The court granted liberty to restore an application for dismissal after 1 July and directed service of the order and transcript on the Official Receiver.
2. Luton County Court: The appeal was brought from a decision of His Honour Judge Kay QC. The judgment does not state the lower court’s citation or outcome.