Case No: C3/2009/0428&Z

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 1487
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(COMMISSIONER CHARLES TURNBULL)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Friday, 27th November 2009

Before:

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
and
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

	MARTIN 	Appellant	
	- and -		
	
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS	
Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr M Croally (instructed by Law Hurst & Taylor) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Mr James Maurici (instructed by the DWP Litigation Department) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Lord Justice Mummery:

1.	For the reasons which were given in the draft judgments that have been made available to counsel, this appeal is dismissed.  The parties have agreed the following order: 
1) the appeal on the applicable law points, Grounds 1 and 2 of the revised grounds of appeal on page 9 of the appeal bundle, be dismissed.  
2) the renewed application for permission to appeal in respect of the French law point, Ground 3 of the revised grounds of appeal on page 9 of the appeal bundle, be refused; and 
3) the appellant does pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be the subject of detailed assessment and determination of the amount of costs payable under Section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

2.	The appellant has made a written application to the court supported by submissions for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.  That would only be against that part of the order that relates to the revised grounds of appeal on the applicable law point.  There would not be a right to appeal against the refusal of permission to raise the French law points.  The grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court would be, it is said, the same as those which were advanced to this court.  They say that they think our judgments are wrong and they do not deal adequately with their submissions.  They say that such an appeal would raise a point of general public importance that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court, the point being this: whether French law should be treated as the applicable law for a putative trust arising between parties domiciled in England, but relating to immovable property in France, because, in making the arrangements which give rise to the putative trust, the parties gave consideration to the effect of French succession law where the answer to this question is likely to affect a significant number of people because it arises in the context of (1) increased property ownership abroad by United Kingdom nationals and (2) social security legislation regulating entitlement to means tested benefits, and that is also likely to affect a significant number of people.   

3.	 This court has decided not to grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.  It has come to the same conclusion as the Social Security Commissioner did.  The reasons are, contrary to the criticisms made by the appellant, fully set out in the judgments on the basis of the arguments that were advanced in this court.  The court does not agree that there is a point of general public importance of the kind which is put forward by the appellant and which I have just read out.  It is for the Supreme Court itself to decide whether it thinks that this case is of sufficient importance to have a hearing there.  

4.	The application for permission is refused.

Order: Appeal Dismissed