[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 >> Douce v Staffordshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 769 (4 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/769.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 769

[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, 4th May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: In this application the defendant who failed to persuade Miss Justice Rafferty to give summary judgment seeks permission to appeal against that decision to this court. When I first considered the matter on paper it seemed to me that this case fell within the category of those where the court should be cautious to deal with the matter without a full trial because of the issues raised.
2. However, having reconsidered the papers together with Mr Justice Lloyd, I am satisfied that it was open to the judge to conclude that this was a case in which it might be appropriate to grant summary judgment and that the factual material was such as to enable that to be done without injustice and in accordance with the overriding objective. It seems to me in those circumstances that there is a real prospect of persuading this court that the judge below was wrong. That being the situation, that meeting the test for the grant of permission to appeal, I would accordingly grant permission.
3. MR JUSTICE LLOYD: I agree that permission should be granted. The only point I would add, and on which I do not think there is a difference between my Lord and myself, is that the grounds of appeal include what one might call substantive criticisms of the judgment on the claim and also criticisms of the judgment for failure to give sufficient reasons. Looking at the appellant's grounds of appeal, the first two paragraphs are really saying that the judge failed to give proper reasons and grounds 3, 4 and 5 are the more substantive grounds.
4. For my part, I would grant permission on the substantive grounds and refuse permission on grounds 1 and 2 that concern failure to give reasons.
5. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I am grateful to Mr Justice Lloyd for reminding me that that was my view also. Accordingly, permission is only granted on grounds 3, 4 and five.
Order: Application allowed with costs in the appeal