Ghura & Ors v Dalal & Ors

The court may extend the time for filing an appellant’s notice for a specified period, but the power does not permit a general or indefinite extension. The discretion must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective and the policy of finality in litigation. Uncertainty about the future consequences of an order, or a desire to wait and see whether an appeal will become necessary, is insufficient by itself. The Court of Appeal may extend time if a specific appeal arises and the circumstances justify relief.

Following the trial, the parties disagreed about the wording of the final order. The claimants sought a provision extending generally the time for seeking permission to appeal specified paragraphs, pending the working out of the order or further order. The judge rejected that wording and considered the scope of the court’s power under CPR 52.4, the overriding objective, finality, and the possibility of a later application to the Court of Appeal. He nevertheless granted a defined extension of time for appealing the order because it had circulated in draft for several weeks and the judgment was handed down during the vacation.

1. General extension not permitted. CPR 52.4 permits the court to extend the time for filing an Appellant’s Notice for such period as may be directed. It does not permit a general extension without a defined period or endpoint.
2. Finality and overriding objective. The discretion to extend time must be exercised having regard to the overriding objective and the policy of achieving finality. The standard 21-day period supports that policy. A general extension would undermine it.
3. No sufficient present ground. Waiting to see what consequences the judgment produces is not, without more, sufficient justification for extending time to appeal. The judge aligned himself with the approach expressed by Turner J in Kagolovsky [2014] EWHC 108 (QB).
4. Later Court of Appeal relief. If an issue later arose from the terms of the order, the Court of Appeal could consider an application to extend time when the need for an appeal was identified.
5. The proposed general wording was refused. A limited extension was granted until 4 pm on 8 September 2015.