England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE JACOB)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday 20 November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: There are before the court applications by Mr Barnes for permission to appeal three separate orders. Mr Barnes has not attended before this court and, so far as I am aware, he has not sent a message to the court office explaining his absence.
2. I have considered whether it would be sensible or appropriate to adjourn these applications but it seems to me that I should deal with them. It is now 12.15pm. I have been informed that he is still not here and I feel sure that if he was simply experiencing travel difficulties or something of that nature, he would be here by now.
3. The first application is an application in case 2001/1886 in which Mr Barnes seeks permission to appeal from an order of Jacob J of 3 August. By that order Jacob J dismissed an application by Mr Barnes for Mr Skinner to be committed to prison for contempt of court. The facts of the substantive dispute between the parties in that action are scarcely of any relevance given that the application relates to a refusal by the judge to commit him to prison. A substantive hearing had taken place before His Honour Judge O'Brien. Jacob J refused permission to appeal against Judge O'Brien's decision, and no application is or could be made for permission to appeal to this court against that refusal. I should observe that Judge O'Brien made a Grepe v Loam order in relation to the property which was the subject matter of the proceedings in which the Woolwich Building Society had obtained a possession order.
4. Mr Barnes applied for Mr Skinner of Harper's solicitors, who are the solicitors for the Woolwich Building Society to be committed to prison for contempt of court. The basis of the application was that Mr Skinner had sent a letter to the court without sending a copy to Mr Barnes. There is no evidence of any bad faith on the part of Mr Skinner. The letter asserts that Mr Barnes had not made payments in relation to the property in question for over a year. Mr Skinner provided a witness statement asserting that he had made no representation in his letter and that his statements were true when read in that context. He submitted that he was not in contempt of court and therefore that he should certainly not be committed to prison. The judge took a strongly adverse view of the application on the ground that it was, in his judgment, perfectly proper for a trustee in bankruptcy on whose behalf the letter had been sent to communicate to the court.
5. To my mind, the decision of the judge was justified and there is no conceivable basis on which this court would grant permission to appeal against the judge's refusal to commit Mr Skinner to prison. That application is refused.
6. The other applications in the matters 2001/1902-3 are closely related because they arise out of an action in which Mr Barnes has sued the first defendant, Tilbrooks, a firm of solicitors, and a barrister called Sebastian Prentis as the second defendant. In both matters Mr Barnes seeks permission to appeal from an order of Gray J made on 6 August 2001. In the first he refused to grant permission to appeal against the decision of Master Prebble made on 27 April 2001. He also seeks an extension of time, a stay of execution and directions.
7. In the second matter, Mr Barnes seeks permission to appeal from an order allowing an application by the first defendant to have Mr Barnes' claim against him struck out. Again, Mr Barnes seeks an extension of time and a stay of execution. On 27 April Master Prebble dismissed an application by Mr Barnes to set aside the Master's earlier "unless" order of 27 March requiring Mr Barnes to serve particulars of claim within 14 days or his claim against the second defendant in that action would be struck out. The court served the claim forms in question on 22 February.
8. It is not necessary for me to recite the underlying facts. Gray J refused permission to appeal from the order of the 27 April. It follows that since the judge refused an application for permission and did not entertain the appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from that decision (see section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks [2000] 4 All ER 1 per Brooke LJ at pages 6 - 7).
9. That leaves the remaining matter in which Mr Barnes seeks to appeal against the order of Gray J striking out his claim against the first defendants, the firm of solicitors. The key point is that Mr Barnes failed to serve his particulars of claim in time and Gray J struck out the claim. It was within his jurisdiction to do so, his decision to do so was well within the scope of his discretion and in these circumstances I do not think that an appeal to this court would have a realistic prospect of success. It follows that that application must also be refused.
10. For all these reasons I would refuse all Mr Barnes' applications for permission to appeal.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.