England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Clarke v Coutts & Co (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 928 (17 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/928.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 928

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 928
		A2/2002/0117

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(His Honour Judge Zucker QC,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
Monday 17 June 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON
SIR MURRAY STUART-SMITH
____________________

Between:

	DAVID WILLIAM CLARKE	Claimant/Appellant
	and:
	COUTTS & CO (A FIRM)	Defendant/Respondent

____________________

MISS G ANDREWS QC (instructed by SPR Avery, Midgen & Co, 227/281 Oxford Street, London WC1)
appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR D BERKLEY QC and MR A BUTLER (instructed by Farrer & Co, 68 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A)
appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Monday 17 June 2002

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN:We refuse the respondent permission at this 12th hour -- it would be wrong even to describe it as the 11th hour -- to raise a point that it was aware of at both of the earlier stages of these proceedings when it chose not follow that approach. True, it believed -- probably mistakenly -- that to do so would have required an adjournment, but that is insufficient reason for raising it for the first time in this court -- be it noted, the third court, because this is in any event a second-tier appeal -- and, what is more, at the very conclusion of its submissions in reply. The point in any event raises no point of true principle or practice but turns on the individual facts of the case. So I am afraid that the respondent's submissions must stand on the basis on which they were left before, namely with the benefit of the respondent's notice but without the benefit of the further point, even though it was one that the court itself contemplated at the outset of the hearing.

LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON: I agree.

SIR MURRAY STUART-SMITH: I also agree.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010