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!



BAILII [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 >> Lewis v Grant & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 39 (17 January 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/39.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 39

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

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 39
A2/2001/2169 & A2/2001/2170

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
Thursday 17 January 2002

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
____________________

Between:
ELIZABETH MARION JANE LEWIS Claimant/Applicant
and:
L A GRANT
A H GROWER
M SEIFERT
J L WILLIAMS
RIPPON PATEL & FRENCH & CO (A FIRM)
THE SOLICITORS INDEMNITY FUND Defendants/Respondents
ELIZABETH MARION JANE LEWIS Claimant/Applicant
and:
PETER McHALE
ANDREW GILBERT
ALAN MAYS
BARRY POSNER PENTOL & CO (A FIRM) Defendant/Respondent

____________________

The Applicant was represented by MR N READINGS, as Litigation Friend
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Thursday 17 January 2002

  1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Readings has appeared today on Mrs Lewis' behalf. In order to ensure that I understand the nature of the case and of Mrs Lewis' complaint, I have been prepared to hear him.

  2. He makes two submissions to the court: firstly, that the cases should be adjourned; secondly, if not adjourned, that I should accept that there is jurisdiction in this court to hear the applications and to grant permission to appeal.

  3. As to the first, there is no doubt that Mrs Lewis suffers from ill health and there are certificates that she is unable to attend work as a result of problems to her knee and her back. There is no certificate which indicates that she is unable to travel to this court today. If there were any merit in her substantive application, I might have been minded to grant an adjournment but, as will appear shortly, there is none, so I refuse an adjournment.

  4. Both the applications before me are for permission to appeal against orders of Andrew Smith J. Those orders were refusals of permission to appeal from decisions of Master Trench. It follows that there is no substantive decision against which the applicant can appeal. Section 54.4 of the Access to Justice Act makes it plain that there is no right of appeal against the refusal or grant of permission to appeal unless such a right is given by rules of court. No rules of court give to Mrs Lewis the right to appeal in either case. Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and for that reason they must be treated as dismissed.

    5. ORDER: Applications refused

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/39.html