England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Lewison QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 27th March 2001

1. LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: In application 2000/6035/B2 Mr. Marya has an application to re-reinstate an application for permission to appeal against an order made by Mr. Kim Lewison QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division dated 31st March 2000 Mr Marya is the subject of a bankruptcy order made on a petition presented by Southall Properties Ltd which was based on a judgment debt of £29,159.89, dated 15th March 1999. Subsequently Mr Marya applied to District Judge Sturdy for an ammendment of the bnnkruptcy order. This application was refused by the District Judge, and Mr. Levison QC dismissed an appeal against the District Judge's order.
2. The application for permission to appeal first came before Rix LJ on 20th July 2000. On that occasion Mr. Marya was not present and was not represented. He faxed the court, saying:

"As I am already abroad so I am unable to attend the hearing listed on 20th July 2000. Kindly do the needful and oblige."

3. Rix LJ considered the matter and, as appears from the transcript, he declined to give permission to appeal.
4. Mr. Marya then made an application to reinstate the application before Robert Walker LJ, and that matter was one of two matters heard by the judge on 24th November 2000. Robert Walker LJ notes that Mr. Marya had communicated with the court asking for the application this morning should be dealt with on paper, but that he dealt with it in open court though again in his absence. Having considered the matter he declined to reinstate the matter. He said that on such an application reasons would have to be shown for absence on the prior occasion and that there was some prospect of success. As I have explained to Mr. Marya, where an applicant seeks to renew an application where an order has been made in his absence, he has to provide, as Robert Walker LJ observed, a satisfactory explanation for his absence and also grounds on which it can properly be said that the judgment which was given in his absence overlooked some matter which would have influenced the result. I also added that, if the matter had come before the Master as in this case, the Master was correct to decline to reinstate the matter until that explanation and some basis for those grounds was given.
5. In this case there was an application to the court by Mr. Marya that the court should deal with this matter on paper. However, it has been listed in open court to give Mr. Marya the opportunity to make any submissions that he wished to make. Mr Marya has appeared in court this morning and has submitted a letter dated 26th March 2000, headed "Marya v Southall Properties Ltd B3/2001/6035, Marya v Lord Chancellor's Department A2/2001/0297, Lloyd's TSB Bank v RK/SL Marya B3/2001/6038". The letter is from Gratian & Co Solicitors. The letter says:

"Mr. Marya just today has approached us and we have agreed to act on his behalf, therefore, kindly vacate the tomorrow date of 27 March 2001 for the above cases in order to enable us to arrange a counsel.

As soon as a suitable counsel be arranged, we will request the honourable court to relist the above cases on the alternative days."

6. It is clear from that letter that Mr. Marya only approached the solicitors yesterday. This matter has been outstanding for a very long time. The original order made by Mr. Lewison was made on 31st March 2000, nearly a year ago. There was an application before Rix LJ as long ago as last July. It is too late for Mr Marya to approach solicitors the day before a yet further application to reinstate the matter, and then to seek an adjournment on that basis. No grounds have been put forward to me as being grounds which might be advanced by a legal representative on his behalf. I note that on the application before Mr Lewison the appellant appeared in person. I decline to grant an adjournment.
7. Mr Marya has made an alternative application, that the matter should be heard before three Lords Justices in order that it can be fully dealt with. The fact of the matter is that I am only dealing with an application to re-reinstate an application. This matter of permission to appeal has already been considered by two members of the court. As I see it, it would not be right for me to direct that this matter comes before three Lords Justices.
8. As no grounds of the nature which I have explained have been put forward for my making an order to re-reinstate the application for permission to appeal, I decline to do so. Additional grounds for dismissing this application are set out in my further judgment today in this matter.
Order: Application refused.