[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 >> Assi v Leeds Metropolitan University [2001] EWCA Civ 1652 (26 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1652.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1652

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT
(DISTRICT JUDGE ATHERTON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday 26 October 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE RIX: This is Mr Assi's application for permission to appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Taylor given on 30 January 2001. This is a second tier appeal because Judge Taylor was himself dealing on appeal with an application for disclosure which had originally been made to District Judge Atherton on 25 September 2000.
2. The application for disclosure arose in proceedings which Mr Assi had brought against Leeds Metropolitan University. He made that application in the period between the decision against him given by His Honour Judge Gullick on 8 October 1999 in his claim against Leeds Metropolitan University based upon a compromise agreement, and the appeal from that decision which was finally heard on 16 February 2001.
3. These proceedings arose out of a dispute, which started a long time ago, between Mr Assi and the University concerning his post at the University as a research student in electrical engineering. Things went wrong and the University ended his post.
4. Mr Assi brought internal appeal proceedings against the University. Those proceedings were compromised, or so the parties thought, by agreement. It was upon that agreement that Mr Assi brought his claim against the University in the courts. Both Judge Gullick and the Court of Appeal, who agreed with Judge Gullick, considered that the compromise agreement which both parties thought they had made was no agreement binding in law because it was too uncertain.
5. As I have mentioned, it was in the period between Judge Gullick's judgment against him and the Court of Appeal's dismissal of his appeal that Mr Assi brought his application for disclosure. It can be seen in his letters of 4 and 8 December 2000. District Judge Atherton thought that the documents requested were irrelevant and unnecessary to the proceedings on the compromise agreement. Judge Taylor agreed. He considered that this request for disclosure amounted to a request to put in new evidence before the Court of Appeal, but that there was no right to do so unless these documents could not have been obtained at an earlier stage and, in any event, only the Court of Appeal could order the disclosure because the appeal was pending. Therefore on the merits of his appeal to Judge Taylor, but also on the procedural basis stated, Mr Assi lost on every point. He now seeks a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.
6. As I have told him, I can only grant him permission to appeal on the basis of some important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason. In my judgment, there is no such important point or compelling reason. On the contrary, I find myself in full agreement with Judge Taylor, that only the Court of Appeal could have ordered the disclosure; that the documents could have been obtained at an earlier stage; that it was too late to do so at the Court of Appeal stage; and that, in any event, they were not relevant.
7. Another difficulty for Mr Assi is that, on closer examination of his application, it turns out that only some of the disclosure which he sought was disclosure against the University. Most of the disclosure he sought was from his previous solicitors, Susan Hotchin or Bassra & Co, or from the University's solicitors, Addleshaw Booth & Co. The papers before me indicate that Mr Assi has complaints against his former solicitors and against the University's solicitors, whom he regards as colluding together against him and misleading the court, and, in the case of his own solicitors, also as not being prepared to follow his instructions.
8. None of these considerations are of any relevance to the proceedings against the University which, in any event, have come to an end with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
9. I have made these observations in deference to Mr Assi's full written submissions which he has underlined in his oral submissions before me. He is, as I can understand, particularly concerned about the costs orders made against him, both by District Judge Atherton and Judge Taylor. There is nothing I can do about those costs orders. They followed directly from the failure of his application to the first judge and of his appeal to the second judge. Those costs orders must lie where they fall, together with the failure of this application.
10. For these reasons, this application is refused.
Order Permission to appeal refused.