[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 >> Chimarides v Chimarides [2007] EWCA Civ 320 (08 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/320.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Civ 320

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BRIGHTON COUNTY COURT
(HER HONOUR JUDGE COATES)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		8th March 2007

1. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Chimarides seeks permission to appeal the order of Judge Coates of 8th May 2006. On that occasion Judge Coates dismissed Mr Chimarides' application on his non-attendance and ordered him to pay Mrs Chimarides' costs.
2. The court is not supplied with a copy of Mr Chimarides' notice of application to the court that was heard on 8th May. However, I do have a transcript of what happened on that occasion. Miss Waddicor appeared for Mrs Chimarides and the following occurred. She said:

"... my solicitors were not served by the applicant with a notice of his application but a copy was sent by the Court and it is on a form headed 'Appellant's notice'. It was issued on 10th March 2006. It is not clear what it is about. He sets out in his grounds of appeal a matter in respect of Children Act matters but I haven't —"

The rest of the transcript makes matters no clearer.

3. In his grounds of appeal Mr Chimarides says he is appealing the decision of Judge Coates on 8th May for the following reasons, and then he sets out:

"1. I asked permission to Appeal the decision of Judge Coates of the 28th October 2004 refusing to hear a children's residence application whereby my two children wish to move residence. The Circuit Judge said that a move of the children and their intended wishes would prevent the woman in the case from making further financial gain. As far as I am aware the children do not automatically go to the woman in children's applications and in fact their wishes are paramount. These have entirely been ignored because Judge Coates wished to assist the woman in the case to achieve maximum financial rewards.

2. The Circuit Judge has chosen to hear and Appeal of her own decision which is contrary to Statutory Instruments. Clearly an Appeal of a Circuit Judge does not lie to herself. This is a breach of Article 6 ECHR whereby proper procedures are not being following and the Judge is clearly abusing her discretion.

3. The Judge has not only refused to hear my application but also dismissed it and ordered costs against me during the hearing when I have never asked her for a hearing in the first place. All I have asked for was a proper and fair hearing to ascertain the wishes of my children and this has been refused time and time again.

4. The solicitors representing the woman in the case have been the subject of directions by [District Judge] Merrick of the Brighton court since June 2003 whereby he made directions that they stand down because there was a case of misconduct, fraud and perjury and that they were to appear as witnesses. Circuit Judge Coates has refused to allow witnesses to be called, has directed that summonses were not served and has refused that the solicitors stand down. Clearly this is a breach of Article 6 ECHR. I am in a position whereby I am forced to give information to a solicitor that has clearly misconducted themselves in a case.

5. I have also sought to set aside an ancillary relief order because the Circuit Judge has made an order to make me homeless and to allow all the funds of the marriage entirely to the woman in the case in order to prevent the children moving to their father. It would clearly be inappropriate that I appear before this Judge under any circumstances and have done the right thing to Appeal her decision which she has made a mockery of."

4. This case has previously been to this court on an application disposed of by Wilson LJ on 3rd March 2006. On that occasion he reviewed a decision of Judge Coates of 28th October 2005. It appears, although the position is not clear, that this is a further attempt to review Judge Coates' decision of October 2005. However, it in fact comes before the court as an application for permission to appeal against an order of 8th May 2006.
5. Mr Chimarides did not take the trouble to turn up before the judge on 8th May 2006. Whatever application he made on that occasion, the judge dismissed it. Mr Chimarides has not taken the trouble to tell the court what the application was. In these circumstances, it seems to me that there is absolutely no basis for granting permission to appeal against the judge's order of 8th May and permission is therefore refused.
6. There is I am told an application for an extension of time, which is also refused.

ORDER: Applications for permission to appeal and an extension of time in which to file the appellant's notice refused.

(Order not part of approved judgment)