IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MIDDLESBROUGH COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRYANT)
Strand London WC2A 2LL Monday 24 June 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
BARRY BATEY | ||
Claimant/Applicant | ||
- v - | ||
WATSON BURTON | ||
Defendant/Respondent |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"Grounds 1 and 2 [of the grounds of appeal] challenge the judge's findings of fact at page 42 of his judgment. The reasons he gives for this finding are compelling and I see no real prospect that this court could be persuaded to disagree with him. Ground 3 is dependent on the success of Grounds 1 and 2."
"You may recall that I said that Mr Batey was the person who suggested that Mr Gillen would take part in certain proceedings after a conversation he had had with him."
"the position here is as follows: (1) there was on the finding of the court a material non-disclosure by Mr Batey and his advisers (I interpolate here that those advisers were of course Mr Ditchburn's firm not the present defendants) of the letter of 5 May (2) Mr Batey at the earlier stages never admitted or explained this, (again I interpolate that this was before Watson Burton were instructed). Consequently, an enquiry was necessary and reasonable and it put Mr Murray and his advisers in a situation where they had grave suspicions because, on the face of it, there was a manifest contradiction between a solicitor acting for the defendant in the action and the defendant himself. Mr Murray therefore pursued the matter. Mr Batey was slow to respond."