England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Otobo v Otobo [2001] EWCA Civ 1143 (5 July 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1143.html
Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1143

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1143
		B1/2001/1038/A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Johnson)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Thursday, 5th July 2001

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE THORPE
____________________

	FRANCISCA NWANNEKA OTOBO	Appellant
	(Respondent)
	-v-
	GUY EBOE OTOBO	Respondent
	(Applicant)

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Mr R Seabrook QC (instructed by Messrs Collyer-Bristow, London WC1) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Husband.
Miss A Hussey (instructed by Messrs Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Hampstead, London) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Wife.
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is an application to vacate a fixture for 17th/18th July 2001 in the case of Otobo. The direction that was given on 14th June (communicated to the parties by letter on 18th June) was for an oral hearing of the application for permission to appeal on notice, with appeal to follow if permission granted, with a time estimate of half to one day.

Mr Seabrook QC, for the respondent husband, has pleaded his own professional commitment. He has pointed out the sense of injustice to his Nigerian client if he was obliged to defend his judgment without counsel of his choice; and he has stressed the difficulties that his instructing solicitor has in communicating with his client in Nigeria. In response, Miss Hussey, for the appellant wife, takes a pretty neutral line.

Directions of this sort simply cannot be fixed to counsel's convenience, and applications to break these fixtures on the grounds of counsel's convenience are seldom, if ever, granted. On the other hand, Mr Seabrook's points are not without weight.

I have decided that the most sensible solution to the current difficulty is to hold the fixture on 18th July, but only for the determination of the outstanding application for permission. That application will be heard on notice. I do not take it to be substantial prejudice to the respondent husband if other counsel put his case on that date, since all that the court will be determining is the question of permission or no, and any competent counsel could put the argument for the respondent husband on that day. If the application for permission succeeds, the appeal will be heard to float on 2nd to 3rd August. That is the best we can make of the situation.

Costs of today will be costs in the application.

Order: application for permission to appeal to be heard on notice on 18th July 2001; if application for permission is successful, appeal to float on 2nd/3rd August 2001; costs of today to be costs in the application.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010