BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [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 >> Whitby v Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1004 (13 June 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1004.html
Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1004

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1004
B3/2001/0590

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Wednesday, 13th June 2001

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE KAY
-and-
SIR MURRAY STUART-SMITH
____________________

WHITBY (An Infant Suing Eve Whitby Her Mother & Next Friend) Claimant/Respondent
- v -
CENTRAL MANCHESTER HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST Defendant/Applicant

____________________

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR P HAVERS QC (instructed by Messrs Hempsons, Manchester M1 3LF) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not attend and was unrepresented
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Wednesday, 13th June 2001

  1. LORD JUSTICE KAY: Sir Murray Stuart-Smith will give the first judgment.

  2. SIR MURRAY STUART-SMITH: I will grant permission to appeal in this case. In my judgment there is an arguable case that there was no binding contract contrary to the views taken by the learned deputy judge; and that a difference of nearly £200,000 in the claim is something which arguably should have been regarded as sufficiently a substantial difference to enable the judge to exercise his discretion to grant the application.

  3. As Mr Havers has pointed out there are grounds for thinking that the reasons advanced by the learned judge for exercising a discretion as he did are open to criticism.

  4. The case will be heard by two Lords Justices with an estimate of half a day.

  5. LORD JUSTICE KAY: I agree.

    6. (Application granted; no order for costs).

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1004.html