[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 >> Blake v Harding & Rowe (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1288 (13 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1288.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1288

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 13th June 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is an application for permission to appeal against the order of Mr Justice Silber in March 2001 dismissing an action for professional negligence brought by Mr Blake against Harding & Rowe, a firm of solicitors.
2. Mr Blake applied for permission to appeal and that was refused on paper on 25th May 2001. He sought to appeal on two points. The only one that has been the subject of this renewed application for permission is what has been called the car park claim. In dealing with the judge's findings on the car park claim, Mr Blake who has conducted his case in person, focused on the judge's judgment at pages 31 to 34, especially the passage at page 32 where the judge gives his reasons for rejecting Mr Blake's evidence that he gave instructions to the solicitor, Mr Chiddock on 15th August 1989 for the car park of the Lee Bay Hotel to be transferred from the company Gala Edge into Mr Blake's own name. Mr Blake has placed before the court three bundles of documents and a number of other loose documents in which he explains the basis on which he wishes to challenge that finding of fact by the judge.
3. Having considered the documents which are not the complete trial bundles, I have come to the conclusion that there are points raised by Mr Blake hwich need to be discussed with arepresentative of Harding & Rowe in order to obtain further clarification of the evidence that was before the judge and the basis on which he rejected Mr Blake's evidence. For those reasons - and I will say no more at this stage before we have heard argument from the other side - my proposal is that we should adjourn this application for permission to a further hearing on notice to Harding & Rowe. The court would be assisted if Harding & Rowe were not only legally represented at the adjourned hearing but, in advance ofit, put in a skeleton argument responding to the points which Mr Blake has set out in his proposed notice of appeal and written submissions.
4. That is what we will do, Mr Blake. We will come back for a further hearing with Harding & Rowe present.
Order: Application adjourned, to be heard by same constitution. Transcript of this judgment to be supplied to applicant at public expense