IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(Mr Justice Evans-Lombe)
Thursday 18th July, 2002
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER
|(1) BARINGS BANK PLC|
|(2) BISHOPSCOURT (BS) LIMITED|
|- v -|
|(1) COOPERS & LYBRAND (A FIRM)|
|(2) CHALY CHEE KHGONG LAH|
|(3) PO'AD BIN SHAIK ABU MAKAR MATTAR|
|(4) KHOO KUM WING|
|(5) SJ TAN||Defendants/Respondents|
of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7404 1400
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR K DAVIES QC and MR R GILLIS (instructed by Messrs Slaughter & May, London EC1Y 8YY) appeared on behalf of the Respondents
Crown Copyright ©
"... the PLC action against your clients should be stayed on terms that such a stay will only be lifted in the event that the Court finds your clients to have been negligent but they avoid any damages award in favour of BFS on grounds which would not be a bar to a claim by PLC/BSL."
"It would be a highly material consideration, to put it no higher, on the question of costs if I were able to demonstrate that this claim was always doomed to failure."
"It will not be easy to overturn the judge's careful and thorough judgment. Nevertheless the grounds of appeal are arguable, and the issues are important both to the parties and generally."
"The learned Judge gave a written judgment ... which was released in final form on 23 November 2001 and formally handed down on 27 November 2001 (when it was indicated for PLC and BSL that consideration was being given to the possibility of putting forward amendments). Consequential matters were then dealt with on 5 December 2001... On that occasion PLC and BSL put forward draft amendments on the duty of care point and the bonuses point, which they sought leave to make if the Judge considered that they would remedy the deficiencies which he saw in the Statement of Claim... D&T submitted that such amendments were too late (relying on Stewart v Engel [2001} 1 WLR 2268, CA) and, in any event, that they added nothing new. The learned Judge refused the application on the ground it was made too late." (Emphasis supplied)
"For my part, unless the nature of the application shows that some decisive authority or decisive statutory provision has been overlooked by the Lord Justice granting permission to appeal, an applicant would normally have to show that the single Lord Justice had actually been misled in the course of the presentation of an application."