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 LEEDS COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Grenfell)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday 24 April 2001

Tuesday 24 April 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: This is an application for permission to appeal made by the defendants in a case where the claimant sued for the cost of examining a tape recording which was alleged to have been tampered with. It was a small claim in the sum of about £800.
2. The claim was brought in front of the district judge. It failed and was appealed to the circuit judge. He considered whether there should be a rehearing of the case, because it was argued, firstly, that the district judge said he had not been able to read all the papers, and in fact had not read all the papers before the hearing took place; and, secondly, because it was said that the district judge had had a conversation with the claimant's representative in the courtroom after the case was over which showed that he had been biased towards the claimant and/or their representative. The circuit judge, Judge Grenfell, held that there was no ground for a rehearing.
3. Before considering the numerous grounds put forward in relation to the application for appeal, I should say that Mr and Mrs Barnes have asked for the matter to be adjourned from today because they say that they need 28 days' notice of the date of the hearing. Mr Barnes says that his wife is ill and he also is unwell, having had a heart attack. He says that he now needs to have an adjournment of the matter, but he has also said that if the court does not feel it right to adjourn this matter, then he would wish the court to deal with it in his absence.
4. Having considered the papers, it does seem to me that this is an unarguable appeal in respect of what is a very small amount of money over all. There is great danger that already costs will have exceeded the amount at stake. I do not therefore think it is right to adjourn the application to a further hearing date, in spite of the applicants' own difficulties in being present today.
5. I have considered the grounds of appeal. There is an unfortunate similarity in two of them to the grounds of appeal to the circuit judge. It is said that the circuit judge had been in conference with the claimant's representative before the hearing. The position as to that is, I am quite satisfied, that if there was any contact between the claimant's representative and the judge before the hearing it was of the most formal kind - such as "Good afternoon"; a discussion about the weather - and nothing that need have worried Mr and Mrs Barnes at all took place between the representative of the claimant and the circuit judge. It is also said that the circuit judge had also not been able to read the papers in a proper fashion.
6. I am satisfied that there is nothing in any of the grounds of appeal in this case, and that it is time that this litigation should now come to a halt. So I decline to adjourn the matter. I have, as indicated, considered the merits of the application, and the application will have to be dismissed.
7. The letter written to the court of 11 April, which was the letter saying that 28 days' notice should be given of the date of hearing, also included an assertion that the claimant company has ceased trading and that calls to their telephone number are being diverted to another company. That may have some relevance to questions of enforcement of this small judgment, but it does not have any relevance to the application itself, which will have to be dismissed.
8. I direct that, when I have had an opportunity of considering the transcript of my remarks, that transcript, as corrected, should be sent to Mr and Mrs Barnes so that they can read the reasons for my rejection of their application. That is to be done at public expense.
ORDER: Application refused. Transcript of the judgment to be provided to the applicants at public expense. (Order not part of approved judgment)