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!
[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 >> Matin v Choudhury & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 425 (26 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/425.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 425 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr M Kallipetis QC(sitting as a deputy High Court judge))
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ABDU MATIN | ||
Claimant/Applicant | ||
- v - | ||
(1) ABDUL RASHID CHOUDHURY | ||
(2) ABDUL MANNAN | ||
(3) MAHMOOD AHMED | ||
(4) ABU BAKAR | ||
(5) BANA MEAH | ||
(6) ABDUL MUTAHIR ALI | ||
(7) HELAL UDDIN | ||
(8) FERDOUS AHMED | ||
(9) FAKHRUL ISLAM | ||
Defendants/Respondents |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The effect of that section and that rule is that only the Court of Appeal has power to give permission to appeal where it would be a second appeal, and permission will only be given if the case raises an important point of principle or practice or if the court considers that there is other reason why permission should be given. What I wrote on 31st July was that my view was this application raised no important point of principle or practice and, accordingly, permission would be refused in terms of Section 55 and CPR Rule 52.3."
"In my judgment, there is no proper basis for giving permission to appeal in this case. First and foremost, this would be a second appeal. It raises no important point of principle or practice and it does not come within the provisions of Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 nor CPR 52.13. It seems to me that neither the master nor the deputy judge made any error of law. These were entirely discretionary decisions which were open to them on the evidence and material before them. Mr Matin had indeed failed to comply with the unless order of 15th September 1999 and in those circumstances it was open to each of these judges to make the decisions which they did. It seems to me that the deputy judge did not apply a wrong test. The defendants were not obliged to attend on 15th May and that provides no grounds for appeal at all. It seems to me that there is no material for reaching any conclusion that Master Eyre was not impartial. Accordingly, it seems that this is an application which has no prospect of success whatever and in those circumstances I refuse the application."
"Mr Matin urged before me today that he had every intention of complying with it [that is the order that Master Eyre had made in which he had ordered Mr Matin to pay £60 costs to various defendants], but he has produced no evidence at all indicating his ability to pay, he certainly has not produced any evidence that he has offered to pay the defendants the costs which he was ordered to pay and there is no indication before me either that he has in fact, contrary to his assertions, any intention of paying the costs which the Master has ordered him to pay to the defendants in respect of the abortive hearings in front of the Master."