[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 >> Pitts v Hartman & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 376 (27 September 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/376.html Cite as: [2000] EWCA Civ 376

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Sullivan)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday 27th September, 2000

1. MASTER VENNE: This is an application for permission to appeal orders made by Sullivan J on 26th June, whereby he dismissed the application to set aside orders made by Gibbs J on 5th May 2000. Gibbs J had struck out the claim and statement of case against the fourth defendant, who is a Dr Milovitch, a psychiatrist who, as I understand it, prepared a psychiatric report in respect of the applicant's grandchild in respect of whom Mr Pitts had been seeking custody.
2. The application was filed on 6th July 2000 and the claimant was then given an extension of time in which to file his bundles. That extension expired on 9th August. Meanwhile Mr Pitts had filed two folders of loose documents on 26th July, but they were returned to him since they clearly did not comply with the court's requirements.
3. On 23rd August the matter was assigned to the Dismissal List for failure to file bundles. There is also, I note, an application for the provision of a transcript of the judgment at public expense. But Deputy Master Joseph directed that no action be taken in respect of that application until Mr Pitts had troubled to file a bundle which complies with the court's directions.
4. Today there has been received in the Civil Appeals Office a bundle which has been apparently prepared by Mr Pitts. I have examined the bundle briefly. It is plainly defective in a number of respects, not least in that there is no pagination and no effective index which would enable the court to examine the bundle in a sensible way. There is also, so far as I can ascertain, only one copy of that bundle.
5. In these circumstances, I order that unless the bundle is made to comply with the court's requirements in every regard within 14 days of the sealing of today's order, then this application will stand dismissed with costs without further order. If, on the other hand, the applicant secures compliance with the court's requirements, then, and only then, will consideration be given to the obtaining of a copy of the transcript of judgment at public expense.