Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC008A

royal court

(Samedi Division)

12^th January 2007

Advocate O. Blakeley for the Plaintiff.

Advocate D. Benest for the First Defendant.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        The test of an application for leave to appeal was set out in the Court of Appeal judgment of Glazebrook v The Housing Committee [2002] JCA 217.  Advocate Benest has succinctly summarised the grounds as being:

(i)        Where there was a clear case of something having gone wrong in the Court below;

(ii)       the case involved a question of general principle, decided for the first time; or

(iii)      the case involved an important question of law, upon which further argument and a decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage.

Clearly in this case, points (ii) and (iii) do not apply.

2.        The test has apparently changed in England and Wales and the Supreme Court Practice states at 59/14/18:

"The general test which the Court applies in deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal is this: leave will normally be granted unless the grounds of appeal have no realistic prospects of success".

3.        Glazebrook is a case on substance, all the other cases cited are cases on costs.  Some of the dilemma is confuted (again on a question of costs) by Commissioner Page in Britannia Building Society v Simon Philip Milborn [2007] JRC 001.

4.        It is not for me to question the judgment of Glazebrook in any way.  That is a judgment after Court of Appeal but because Advocate Benest in his closely reasoned written submissions has argued forcefully that in any event there are clear instances of something having gone wrong in the conclusions of the Court below (there are 9 reasons given) but particularly in regard to the medical evidence and to the question of causation, I have granted leave to appeal.

Authorities

Glazebrook v The Housing Committee [2002] JCA 217.

Britannia Building Society v Simon Philip Milborn [2007] JRC 001.