[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 >> Abouchitaa v El-Yamlahi [2001] EWCA Civ 1024 (20 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1024.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1024

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER BARKER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday 20 June 2001

1. THE DEPUTY MASTER: This is the third occasion upon which the respondent's appeal against Mr Recorder Barker's committal order has been listed for dismissal before a Deputy Master of this court. The lack of progress of the appeal is set out in Deputy Master Joseph's judgment of 16 May 2001. It is only necessary for me to relate the events which have taken place since that date.
2. On 16 May Deputy Master Joseph made an unless order that the respondent's solicitors should provide an official note of the Recorder's judgment, which had been approved by counsel and by the Recorder, by 4.30 pm on 30 May 2001. In the event that they were unable to provide an approved note, the court was to be provided with a detailed chronology which set out all the steps which counsel and solicitors had taken in progressing the matter. Deputy Master Joseph also directed that the appeal be re-listed in the dismissal list on 6 June. It was only removed from that list because the respondent's solicitors sent a fax to the office on 5 June which contained a rather brief chronology of the steps they had taken.
3. The respondent's solicitors indicated in their fax that it was hoped that the final version of the note of judgment would be faxed to Wandsworth County Court later that afternoon for Mr Recorder Barker's approval. Although the appeal was removed from the dismissal list on 6 June, it was re-listed for today in order that the respondent's solicitors should provide a note of judgment or a further chronology of the steps taken to obtain the note. The note of judgment has not been provided to this court, nor has a further chronology been supplied. I have therefore directed that the matter should remain in the dismissal list in order that the court may have available to it a copy of this judgment and that of Deputy Master Joseph and so may be aware of the delay in dealing with this appeal. It is an appeal involving the liberty of the subject and, as Deputy Master Joseph has made plain, it is vital that such an appeal is determined as quickly as possible.
4. It would appear that, through the efforts of the staff of the Civil Appeals Office, Mr Recorder Barker has approved a note of his judgment. One of the case managers in the Civil Appeals office made inquiries of the County Court and ascertained that the Recorder's note book had been despatched to him in order for him to approve the note of judgment which counsel had prepared. Although that notebook was misdirected in the document exchange, it was received by the Recorder and he approved the note of judgment and faxed the approved version to the county court. The county court informed this office that the respondent's solicitors were informed on 18 June that they would be able to collect the note from the county court during the morning of 19 June. The county court also informed this office that that note was not collected until 3.30 on 19 June, but that the respondent's solicitors nevertheless intended to deliver it to the Civil Appeals office before the registry closed at 4.30 pm that day.
5. The note of judgment was not received before the office closed, nor is it available now. I should emphasise that, bar a letter which was faxed in from the respondent's solicitors yesterday, this information was all provided to the office by the county court as a result of the direct inquiries made by the staff of this court. The only indication received from the respondent's solicitors as to the position with regard to the note is their letter dated 19 June which was received this morning. In that letter they say:

"We are arranging to collect the document today [19 June] and should therefore be in a position to provide this honourable court with the transcript within the next few days."

6. They then ask if the matter could be removed from the dismissal list today. As I have said, I have directed that the matter should remain in the dismissal list. It seems very strange that the solicitors are not going to be in a position to lodge a note of judgment for a "few days" if it is already in their possession. I therefore order that, if the note of judgment is not received within seven days of the date of the seal on the order I make today, the appeal shall be dismissed with costs without further order. I direct that this judgment is transcribed and that a copy of it, and of the judgment given by Deputy Master Joseph on 16 May, is provided to the costs officer who will be responsible for determining whether the respondent's solicitor's costs have been reasonably incurred, bearing in mind that the respondent's solicitors are publicly funded for the purposes of the appeal and no doubt in the court below.