[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 >> Cheung v Southwark London Borough Council & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 1179 (05 November 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1179.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Civ 1179

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR P GIROLAMI QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		5/11/08

Lord Justice Carnwath :

1. This matter last came before me on 9 June as a renewed application on behalf of the proposed Appellant, having been adjourned by me on the 28 April 2008 when she appeared in person. The background of the case appears from my judgment of 28^th April. She was appealing from the Judge's decision that she had no title to bring the action in her own name, as opposed to that of the company which she controlled called Capital Direct Management Limited. On 9 June, I adjourned the matter on notice to the Respondents in the hope that some way might be found by agreement for amending the proceedings to enable the issues to be tried on the merits. As I made clear, I was not persuaded that it was open to me, other than by agreement, to accede to an application to join the company at the appeal stage.
2. I have now received responses from the three Defendants and they make clear that, not only are they not willing to agree to the course suggested to me, but they have good reasons for declining to do so. They also emphasise that the applicant's decision not to join the company at an earlier stage was deliberate and made in the face of contrary legal advice. I have also seen a note of the hearing before Master Teverson on 5 February 2007, from which it is clear that he went into the matter with great care and drew attention to the potential problem of standing. I have taken account of Miss Cheung's Further Submissions of 8^th October 2008, but they do not alter the position.
3. In those circumstances it seems to me clear that the proposed appeal is without merit and that the only appropriate course is to dismiss the application forthwith. I propose therefore simply to order that the application be dismissed. The stay on execution of costs orders made on 9^th January 2008 will accordingly be lifted. (It follows that Miss Cheung's application dated 9^th September 2008 for substitution of her company as a party to the appeal will also be dismissed.)
4. Any application for costs of the respondents should be made in writing within fourteen days of this judgment being handed-down. The applicant will have fourteen days to submit a response, again in writing. I am unlikely to be sympathetic to a claim for more than one set of costs on behalf of the three respondents, in the absence of an explanation as to why the submissions could not be combined.