Appeals

The Supreme Court has published its fourth annual report and accounts for the period 2012-13.

This Legal Update highlights a recent trend towards the increased use of sanctions in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Dissatisfied with both the arguments and conduct of the parties and attorneys appearing before it, the court has repeatedly imposed or threatened sanctions in the first few months of the year.

New and revised court forms, coming into force on 1 April 2013, have been released by the Ministry of Justice. The new standard directions for multi-track cases, also coming into force on 1 April 2013, have been published on the Justice website.

Members of the senior judiciary have published their response to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation on proposals for reform of judicial review.

This Legal Update highlights resources for lawyers appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On February 19, 2013, the US Supreme Court held in Chafin v. Chafin that the execution of a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act does not render an appeal of the order moot.

The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 have been published. They implement the "big bang" civil litigation reforms arising, in part, out of Jackson LJ's review of civil litigation costs.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Communications Network International, Ltd. v. MCI Worldcom Communications, Inc., reversed the district court's order granting the defendant's motion to reopen the time within which to appeal, finding that the defendant's failure to update its contact information according to the court's rules was the reason it did not receive the entry of judgment.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC denying Arab Bank, PLC's request for immediate appellate review of a discovery sanction in the form of an adverse jury instruction permitting the jury to find that the bank knowingly financed terrorist activity.

In Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, joining an existing circuit split, held that the denial of Parker immunity, also known as state action immunity, is not immediately appealable by private parties in antitrust actions.

A California federal judge rejected Wal-Mart's bid to appeal the denial of its motion to dismiss its gender discrimination case. The case will proceed to the class certification phase in January 2013.

The Supreme Court's decision in Prudential's privilege battle is not expected until 2013. (free access)

PLC Dispute Resolution has published three new Practice notes and two podcasts on the forthcoming changes to Practice Direction 52 (two further Practice notes will be published shortly).

We have published an Appeals: destination table that sets out the location of provisions in both the current Practice Direction (PD) 52 and the new PDs. (Free access.)

The Court of Appeal has granted the claimants leave to appeal the High Court's decision rejecting their claim for misuse of confidential information and breach of contract against the defendants in relation to their "Reggae Reggae" sauce product. (Anthony Bailey and another v Keith Graham and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1146, 5 July 2012.)

The Supreme Court has published its third annual report and accounts for the period 2011-12.

In Brightsea UK Ltd v Drachs Investments No 3 Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 516, the Court of Appeal set aside a first instance court order and considered an application for relief to a party that had acted to its detriment in pursuance of the order.

In both Duffy v Stripes Solicitors [2012] EWCA Civ 217 and Pressure Seal Solutions Ltd t/a Welltec System (UK) v Activa DPS Europe Sarl [2012] EWCA Civ 206, the Court of Appeal considered the need to take account of the overriding objective when considering applications for leave to appeal.

PLC Public Sector has published a note explaining when an individual may claim damages in a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of a public body's action and a response to a letter before claim, with integrated drafting notes, for use by a defendant.

In Re A and another (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1205, the Court of Appeal has set out guidance on how to proceed on appeal where there is concern about the adequacy of the trial judge's reasoning.

In R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court and another [2011] EWCA Civ 1188, the Court of Appeal considered whether it had jurisdiction (under section 18(1), Supreme Court Act 1981) to hear the appeal of a decision regarding disclosure of documents to the Guardian newspaper that arose in extradition proceedings.

The High Court in R (Kuteh) v Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber [2011] EWHC 2061 (Admin), has considered what will amount to a compelling reason to require the Upper Tribunal to reconsider once it has refused a judicial review application.

The fee for filing an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is to rise from £800 to £1,000 on 5 August 2011.

The Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a refusal to admit new evidence for a new trial in Singh and others v Habib and another [2011] EWCA Civ 599 (12 April 2011). (Free access).

On 21 March 2011, various amendments were made to the practice directions for the UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

An Ask the team article on the procedure for intervening in an appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The Law Commission has published a consultation paper on the public services ombudsmen.

A legal update on the Court of Appeal decision in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal and others [2010] EWCA Civ 859.

An update on the publication, by the Supreme Court, of its first Annual Report and Acounts.

An update on the Supreme Court website list of decisions concerning permission to appeal.

An update on the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which will replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on 1 October 2009.

Our Practice note, Appeals to the House of Lords has been updated to refer to the transitional provisions in the Supreme Court Rules that come into force on 1 October 2009.

The Court of Appeal has held that competing jurisdiction clauses in a complex collateralised debt obligation transaction had to be construed in the context of the transaction as a whole.

An update on The Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 2009 (SI 2009/224).

An update on The Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 2009 (SI 2009/224).

On 10 February 2009, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on appeals by Ofcom and T-Mobile against the CAT's judgment, and subsequent order, in Floe Telecom Limited v Ofcom.

In Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd & Ors v Fattal & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 427, the Court of Appeal considered the exercise of case management powers in respect of Walbrook's Part 8 claim and Fattal's subsequent Part 7 claim. A stay of the Part 7 proceedings had been ordered, pending the determination of certain issues in the Part 8 proceedings. Permission had been refused for Fattal to make a Part 20 counterclaim (in the Part 8 proceedings) in respect of an issue it had raised in the Part 7 proceedings (the Sharet issue), as this would complicate or delay the Part 8 proceedings. Permission to appeal the decision on the Part 20 counterclaim was subsequently granted by Carnwath LJ, who was unaware of an order made at a CMC the previous month, with both parties' agreement, directing the determination of the Sharet issue at an imminent hearing slot originally allocated for the Part 8 trial.The Court of Appeal refused to interfere with the judge's case management decisions in circumstances where he had applied the correct principles. It would only do so where such decision was plainly wrong and outside the generous ambit of his discretion. However, there had been a change of circumstances of which Carnwath LJ had not been made aware. Although the application notice and skeleton argument were not misleading when they were lodged, the position had dramatically changed by the time the appeal came to be heard, with all parties aware by then that the significant Sharet issue wou

R v London Borough of Haringey [2008] EWCA Civ 211 concerned an application for permission to apply for judicial review. On the initial application Gibbs J gave permission for judicial review on three grounds. He excluded a fourth ground (whether a notice was invalid) relying on authority that minor defects in notices which do not prejudice the recipient should not operate to invalidate the notice. However, his order did not identify the grounds allowed to go forward to the judicial review hearing. The Court of Appeal considered whether permission for judicial review should be granted on the fourth ground. Mummery LJ agreed with Gibbs J that it was doubtful that the fourth ground was arguable but said that, looking at the matter in the context of the permission given for the other three grounds, the proper course was to grant permission for the fourth ground to be argued. He was influenced by the fact that Gibbs J had taken this course in relation to another dubious ground. He held that if a ground does not seem very strong, it may be worth the court hearing argument on it because such argument may enable the court to get an overall view that may help the court's decision on other grounds. In this case, it was better that the administrative court heard all the arguments. Although this was a decision regarding judicial review, it could also be a useful authority regarding appeals generally. It could be argued that weak grounds of appeal should not be rejected if i

M A Holdings Limited v Wimpey UK Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 12 confirms that a non-party to proceedings below has jurisdiction to bring an appeal. Such a person falls within the definition of "appellant" in CPR 52.1(3)(d) according to its plain and ordinary interpretation and this interpretation gives effect to the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly. This case is the first post-CPR authority on this issue and confirms that the position now is the same as it was pre-CPR.

Following the Court of Appeal decision in Strickson v Preston County Court and others [2007] EWCA Civ 1132, we have added a new section to the practice note on Appeals: an overview on when the High Court can judicially review decisions made by a county court.We have also updated the section on "Detailed requirements for the preparation of bundles" in Practice note, Procedure and documentation in relation to appeals to refer to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Hunte v E. Bottomley & Sons Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1168 on the inclusion of plans, maps, diagrams and photographs in appeal bundles in the Court of Appeal.

We have amended Practice note, Reopening of final appeals in light of Sir William Jaffray and ors v The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586, which involved an application to reopen an appeal, and in which the Court of Appeal touched upon the issue of whether or not the Taylor v Lawrence jurisprudence on reopening of appeals applies to cases involving allegations of fraud by the parties as well as to cases involving judicial bias. For more on this case, see Legal update, Appeals: when they can be reopened.

The House of Lords has held that where a judge grants a certificate allowing a "leapfrog" appeal, but the House of Lords grants leave to appeal on conditions unacceptable to the appellant, the appellant may pursue its appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In First Discount Ltd v (1) Guiness and Ors (2) Cranston [2007] EWCA Civ 378, the Court of Appeal heard a two-pronged application:To reopen an appeal (originally heard in January 2002) pursuant to the Taylor v Lawrence jurisdiction, now encapsulated in CPR 52.17(1).For an extension of time to seek permission to appeal from a decision made over six years earlier.The Court of Appeal rejected the applications for a number of reasons, including the need for finality in litigation and the inability of the appellants to satisfy the requirement set out in CPR 52.17 that there should be no alternative effective remedies.Although the decision is not surprising, the judgment is a useful reminder of the need to ensure that there are no alternative effective remedies before deciding whether to make an application to reopen an appeal. These include any appropriate remedy against a third party.In the case of judgments obtained on bills of exchange (such as the original judgments here), the Court of Appeal noted that the courts will generally take the view that the defendant should be left to a cross-action rather than being allowed to reopen an appeal. It is therefore possible that the Court would have taken a different and more lenient approach if this had been an ordinary action based on contract.

PLC Dispute Resolution, in association with Allen & Overy, has published a new Practice note, Appeals to the House of Lords. The note briefly describes the circumstances in which you can appeal to the House of Lords, the procedure for obtaining permission to appeal, and refers to the rules on how documents should be prepared. It emphasises the importance of consulting the relevant rules in detail when dealing with an appeal to the House of Lords, and advises practitioners to liaise closely with the Judicial Office in this regard. It also provides practical advice on getting into the House of Lords and on delivery of judgments.

Lord Woolf has given guidance on the approach the Court of Appeal will take in appeals against decisions made before implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Lord Woolf and Lord Justice May also commented on case management and proportionality post the Civil Procedure Rules.