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 BRENTFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Oppenheimer)

		The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday 29th July, 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mr Dracup appears to pursue an application for permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Oppenheimer as long ago as 13th June 2001. I have enquired as to why this case has taken so long to be listed for hearing, given that the Appellant's Notice of application for permission was duly filed on 25th June 2001. Mr Dracup tells me that it is because of extreme delays in obtaining a transcript of the judgment below. That is to some extent corroborated by the fact that the judgment put before me is stamped as being received by this court only on 5th July 2002.
2. Mr Dracup tells me that this delay has prejudiced his chances of representation by the Bar Pro Bono Unit. He says that the Citizens Advice Bureau have assisted him in compiling his core bundle, which now extends to some 287 pages. He has prepared manuscript written submissions which are lengthy and not easily intelligible.
3. On the face of it, I have great difficulty in seeing what is his core complaint. In front of the Deputy District Judge an order was made for the sale of both available properties and the division of the anticipated proceeds of sale to ensure that the wife ended up with about £112,000 and the husband with about £75,000.
4. That order was varied by the Circuit Judge on appeal, who held that a simpler solution was for the wife to keep the more valuable property, Woodbine Villas, and the husband to retain the less valuable property, Fern Lane. Both properties are in joint names and each is mortgaged to the extent of about £50,000. Thus, on the face of it, the solution proposed by the judge was perfectly sensible and of course would have entailed reciprocal transfers and release of each from liability in respect of the mortgage on the other's property.
5. I have enquired of Mr Dracup what has happened since 13th June and he says nothing. There has apparently been no application for a stay in respect of an order which required there to be reciprocal transfers effected within 14 days. Mr Dracup has tried to tell me that there are difficulties with the mortgagees, who are not happy with the judge's proposed scheme.
6. I note that paragraph 10 of the order enables either of the parties to apply to the court on implementation and timing. If there are difficulties with the mortgagees then it would seem to me that that is the appropriate remedy.
7. However, somewhat reluctantly, I have acceded to Mr Dracup's application to be given one last chance to appear before this court with representation by the Bar Pro Bono Unit. Accordingly, I direct that this application be adjourned to be listed before me in September to enable the applicant to obtain pro bono representation. The time estimate on the next occasion will remain 20 minutes and no further adjournment will be lightly granted. This case must be disposed of.
8. I will ensure that a copy of this transcript is made available to Mr Dracup at public expense, so that whoever represents him on the next occasion will know the basis upon which the case will appear in my list in September.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal adjourned; transcript of this judgment to be provided to the Applicant at public expense. (Order not part of approved judgment)