British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >>
Barnes v Woolwich Plc & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1165 (18 June 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1165.html
Cite as:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1165
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1165 |
|
|
A2/2001/0991 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Jack)
|
|
Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 18th June 2001 |
|
|
|
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KAY
LORD JUSTICE KEENE
____________________
|
PETER MICHAEL BARNES |
|
|
Applicant |
|
|
- v - |
|
|
WOOLWICH PLC & ANR |
|
|
Respondents |
|
____________________
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
The Applicant did not appear and was unrepresented.
The Respondents did not appear and were unrepresented
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Monday, 18th June 2001
- LORD JUSTICE KAY: This is a renewed application by Mr Barnes in person for permission to appeal and a stay of execution in respect of an order made by Jack J on 1st May 2001. The order was one refusing to adjourn a hearing listed on 4th May 2001 until after a review of a bankruptcy order listed on 10th May 2001.
- The application was set down on 2nd May and expedited. It was refused on paper by my Lord, Keene LJ, on 3rd May. The application has been renewed. However, Mr Barnes has not attended today. He invited the court on Friday to adjourn this matter. The court was not prepared to do so, and so the matter comes before us today.
- Having looked at the papers in relation to this, it seems to me that this is an entirely hopeless application, not least because in any event, even if there was at any time merit (which I doubt), it has now been totally overtaken by events, because in fact the hearing on 4th May was adjourned when the applicant went along on that day. In those circumstances, to perpetuate this matter for any time at all, even by way of keeping it going while the appellant is contacted, seems to me to be a futile exercise and one that can only clog up the lists of this court.
- For those reasons I would refuse the renewed application.
Order: Application dismissed.