England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ROMFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Paynter Reece)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 13th February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mr. Riley is the applicant for permission to appeal. There are very deeply felt reasons why he comes to this court to right his sense of injustice at the conclusion of proceedings which he and his wife brought against Mr. David Jack. There was a counterclaim in the proceedings. Mr. Riley's defence to counterclaim was struck out by His Honour Judge Crispin on 6th October 1999 on the grounds that the claimants had failed to comply with an order made on 10th August 1999 relating to the filing of witness statements that were on that date very, very belated. So when the case came back to court on 3rd November there were two issues. What should be the damages on the counterclaim and what should be the costs order?
2. On that occasion the judge was His Honour Judge Paynter Reece. Mr. Riley appeared in person representing the claimants and counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant. The first issue raised was as to the quantum of damages on the counterclaim. It was a counterclaim for the sum of £5,000 which the defendant claimed to have paid over and the claimants accept to have received. Accordingly, the judge looked at the issue and he said this:

"Yes well, it seems to me on the basis that judgment has been entered for the defendant in respect of the counterclaim that his liability (that is the claimants' liability) cannot be disputed, it is just the question of the amount. Now was it £5,000 that was the amount? It seems to me that I have to assess the damages under that head, the sum of £5,000."

3. There being no room for dispute as to the sum in question the judge passed to the next issue, which is whether the claimants were prepared to offer undertakings to meet another aspect of the claim for damages. That was settled. We see this from page 3 of the proceedings, when the judge asked Mr. Riley if he was prepared to offer an undertaking without prejudice and Mr. Riley responded, saying that they had never done anything. Accordingly, the injunction was agreed at that stage. The judge then passed to the question of interest. The claim was advanced by counsel from 19th June 1995 to 3rd November 1999 at a rate of 8 per cent, giving a figure of £1,749.04. The judge said:

"What do you say about that Mr. Riley. . . .

(Mr. Riley): Well if the order is given for the costs, then the interest must be acceptable."

4. That left only the question of costs. There the judge took a line that was unquestionably favourable to the Rileys. Counsel was invited to participate in an assessment of costs by producing to the judge a bill of costs. He could not do that. The judge said he would look at the back sheet, to which counsel said that his brief was not marked. He further said that he did not know what the fee was. So the judge marked that complete absence of proper information by saying that he was minded to assess the costs at only £250. Counsel tried to argue against that and the judge was unmoved. So eventually the judge said to Mr. Riley:

"Have you anything to say about the £250 figure of costs?"

5. Mr. Riley said:

"I accept that as being . . . ."

6. The judge intervened:

"Well I am going to assess the costs."

7. The transcript of the proceedings on 3rd November, as well as the transcript of the judge's short judgment, demonstrate absolutely no irregularity or error. In coming to this court seeking permission to appeal that order, Mr. Riley is quite simply barking up the wrong tree. He says that there are continuing disputes between himself and Mr. Jack, involving not only the press but also the police. That is as may be, but none of that bears on the application which is listed for disposal today. That application is without merit and I must refuse it.
Order: Application refused.