[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 >> Villatte v 38 Cleveland Square Management Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1705 (16 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1705.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1705

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 16th October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD:

Mr Villatte appears in person today seeking an adjournment of the hearing of his appeal and the adjournment of the renewal of applications for permission to appeal other parts of the order of the Lands Tribunal. I gave him permission to appeal on the so -called company law point on 29th May.

2. This case was fixed for hearing over this week as long ago as 13th June. It was fixed with counsel's clerk. Counsel then instructed on behalf of Mr Villatte was Mr Thacker, appearing pro bono on his behalf, though with the assistance at all times, as I have understood it, of Messrs Christopher Wright & Company, solicitors. Those solicitors wrote to me on 14th October asking for the matter to be adjourned. They explained, as Mr Villatte has amplified in his oral submissions today, that he has experienced a number of difficulties. One of them, which does excite my sympathy, is that he has had to take time in France making arrangements for the care of his elderly and ill parents. But throughout he has had the assistance of solicitors. When Mr Thacker was no longer able to appear pro bono, a Mr Prentis was retained. Mr Prentis apparently indicated on 4th October that he was in difficulties. That was nearly a fortnight ago. Mr Villatte and his solicitors say that they have not had sufficient time to instruct counsel within that period.
3. I am afraid I do not, for my part, find that a satisfactory excuse. This matter has been pending for a long time. The appellant's notice of appeal - itself out of time, though I forgave that - was dated 30th November, 11 months or so ago. In order that justice be done, it has to be done fairly and equally to both sides. The respondents to this appeal have been waiting a long time for the solution to the problems which confront them all. In my view, balancing the interests of the parties and having regard, as I am obliged to do, to the overall requirements of the interests of justice in general, including the requirement that the interest of the court's administration be given its proper weight in this procedure, I am quite satisfied that it would be unjust to grant an adjournment.
4. I am fortified in that conclusion because we do have the benefit of skeleton arguments prepared by Mr Thacker. If Mr Villatte wishes us to see anything prepared on his behalf by Mr Prentis, he is at liberty to put that in. But the issues are comparatively simple and I cannot, for my part, see that the prejudice suffered by him in having to appear in person outweighs the general requirements of justice that this case be disposed of.
5. I would refuse this application to adjourn.

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: I agree.

LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: So do I.

Order: application for adjournment refused.