British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Waterside Finance Ltd & Ors v Karim [2013] EWCA Civ 1322 (03 October 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1322.html
Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 1322
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| WATERSIDE FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS |
Respondents |
|
| - and - |
||
SHAMIN AKHTAR KARIM |
Applicant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondents did not appear and were not represented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- This is a renewed application for permission to appeal, Lewison LJ having on 1 May 2013 refused permission.
- The proposed appeal is against an order made by Asplin J in the Chancery Division on 14 February 2012 relating to the sale of a house formerly owned by the applicant, Mrs Karim, and her husband.
- Put shortly, although everything about the history is a matter of claimed controversy as far as the applicant is concerned, Mrs Karim and her husband charged the property to secure a loan. There was an alleged default. Receivers were appointed and there was a sale of the property at an auction, followed by an assignment of the purchase contract by the auction purchaser to a Mr Newman.
- The outcome of some contentious proceedings in the Chancery Division was that on 14 February 2012 Asplin J, in short, required the defendants to withdraw in writing their objections to Mr Newman's registration as the proprietor of the property, which is Courtlands, Courtlands Avenue, Stony Hill, Esher, Surrey, and the order further directed the Registrar of the Land Registry to give effect to Mr Newman's application to be registered as proprietor of the property. My understanding is that that has still not happened, because the Land Registry takes the view that since Mrs Karim is asking the court, so far unsuccessfully, for a stay of that order, the Land Registry ought not to give effect to it.
- The position today is that although I have read the miscellaneous papers that Mrs Karim has put before the court, it is quite impossible to ascertain whether or not in any of the extended grounds of criticism she makes as to the outcome of the proceedings below before Asplin J there is any arguable point. The relevance of that is that an appellant, or proposing appellant, to the Court of Appeal has to show that the order the judge made was wrong. Of course, there is also a ground of appeal that the proceedings were procedurally irregular, but the primary basis of challenge is, as I understand it, that Asplin J's order was wrong. For my part, I find the assessment of whether that is even arguable almost impossible since Mrs Karim has not put before the court all the material that was before Asplin J.
- There is a statement before the court from Mr Lee, which was before Asplin J. But a copy of the skeleton argument of counsel who appeared for the claimants in the proceedings before Asplin J records that there were four bundles before the court, the witness statement of Mr Lee which is included with the papers the court has, and a witness statement of Mr Lee which does not appear to be with the papers. Mrs Karim tells me that she also put a witness statement before the court, but I do not have that. Nor do I have any of the bundles. One of the matters in issue is an assignment of which only an incomplete copy was provided to the court, the most relevant page not being included, although Mrs Karim helpfully provided that missing page to me this morning.
- In order to assess whether there is any arguable point amongst the various points that Mrs Karim does wish to raise, it is, I consider, essential for the court to have the material that was before the judge. Only then can it assess whether the judge's order was arguably wrong.
- What, therefore, I propose to do with this application is simply to adjourn it to the first convenient date after the expiration of 14 days from today, 3 October. Therefore, I will adjourn it until the first convenient date after 17 October.
- I shall direct that in the meantime Mrs Karim must lodge with the Civil Appeals Office copies of the bundles and witness statements that were before Asplin J, and also a copy of a transcript of the proceedings before Asplin J which Mrs Karim tells me that she has.
Lord Justice Rimer:
Order: Application adjourned