COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE MANN and MR JUSTICE BRIGGS)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) RED RIVER UK LTD (2) ISMAIL DOGAN |
Respondents/Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
ANAL SHEIKH RABIA SHEIKH |
Applicants/ Defendants |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Philip Newman (on 15 December 2008) (instructed by direct access) for the Defendants/Applicants
Mr Meares (on 15 December 2008) (instructed by Messrs Isadore Goldman) for the Claimants/Respondents
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Rimer:
The permission applications
1. The application in relation to the order of 27 September 2007: A3/2007/2795
"(1) The decision by the Learned Judge was wrong as a matter of law because he has implicitly constructed the Settlement Agreement and the Consent Order by his judgment.
(2) The decision by the Learned Judge was wrong as a matter of law because he has wrongly premised his judgment on his assumption, which is wrong, which is that the Deed of Priority as entered into, complies with the Deed of Priority, as settled on point of principle by Briggs J, which it manifestly does not."
2. The application in relation to the order of 2 October 2007: A3/2007/2794
3. The application in relation to the order of 15 November 2007: A3/2007/2793
"That the learned judge was wrong (if he did so) to decide finally that the defendants acted in breach of the implied obligation to act in good faith in relation to the completion of the Composite Transaction. That question turned on matters of fact such that the judge should not (if he in fact did so) have purported to decide it finally in advance of the trial, at which the defendants could adduce oral evidence on the matter. The judge should have done no more than to find that the respondents had a good arguable case that the appellants had breached the implied term.
Orders:
(i) Application in relation to order of 27 September 2007 (A3/2007/2795). Extension of time for appealing refused.
(ii) Application in relation to order of 2 October 2007 (A3/2007/2794).
Extension of time for appealing refused.
(iii) Application in relation to order of 15 November 2007 (A3/2007/2793)
Time for appealing extended and application granted in part