You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >>
Ceredigion County Council v. Jones & Ors [2007] UKHL 24 (23 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/24.html Cite as:
[2007] UKHL 24,
[2007] WLR 1400,
[2007] 3 All ER 781,
[2007] 1 WLR 1400
[New search]
[Buy ICLR report: [2007] 1 WLR 1400]
[Help]
Judgments - Ceredigion County Council (Respondents) v. Jones (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants)
Ceredigion County Council (Respondents) v. Jones (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants)
ORDERED TO REPORT
The Committee (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury) have met and considered the cause Ceredigion County Council (Respondents) v. Jones (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants). We have heard counsel on behalf of the appellants and respondents.
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, if on such an application it appears to the House of Lords to be expedient to do so, the House may grant leave for an appeal to be brought directly to the House; and where leave is granted under this section -
(a) no appeal from the decision of the judge to which the certificate relates shall lie to the Court of Appeal, but
(b) an appeal shall lie from that decision to the House of Lords".
Thus where leave is given, the only appeal will be to the House of Lords. Subsection (3) provides that applications under the section shall be determined without a hearing, a procedure which has become routine but was not so in 1969 when the Act was passed. The Judicial Office of the House invited the claimants to lodge objections to the grant of leave to appeal, indicating that in the absence of objections leave would probably be granted, and the claimants did lodge objections. Ceredigion's petition and these objections were considered by an appeal committee on 24 November 2004.
"Permission to appeal on issue 1 is refused because the petition does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the House at this time, bearing in mind that the question at issue has been regarded as settled for very many years".
On the second issue the appeal committee ruled:
"Permission for leave to appeal on issue 2 has been given on the terms that [Ceredigion] do pay the [claimants'] costs before this House in any event".