Goldtrail Travel Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v (1) Abdulkadir Aydin and Others (Defendants/Appellants (2nd, and 4th to 6th)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Longmore |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 439 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2014/2475 |
| Date | 04 May 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 439
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE ROSE DBE
CASE No: HC12D02320
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Longmore
Lord Justice Kitchin
and
Lord Justice Vos
Case No: A3/2014/2475
Mr David Eaton Turner (instructed by Adams & Remers LLP) Limited) for the 2 nd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Defendants/Appellants
This is the judgment of the Court. We shall adopt the same definitions as were used in the judgment of Lord Justice Vos dated 13 th April 2016. Following that judgment, on 26 th April 2016, the appellants issued an application under CPR Part 52.17 for permission to re-open the appeal for the reasons set out in a statement made by the appellants' solicitor, Mr Albert Edward Passmore on 26 th April 2016. According to the skeleton argument of the appellants' counsel, the reopening of the appeal is necessary to avoid real injustice, arises in circumstances that are exceptional and where there is no alternative effective remedy.
The application under CPR Part 52.17 was, in accordance with the Practice Direction, not served on Goldtrail. The Court decided not to direct that it should be so served for reasons that will become apparent in the course of this judgment, namely that the court did not think that there was merit in the application.
Mr Passmore's statement concludes by saying that Mr Wyatt (one of the appellants) had said to Mr Passmore at the end of the hearing that "he considered that the Lords Justices had decided prior to the hearing of the appeal that he and the other [individual appellants] were crooks and that their appeal had not been properly and fairly considered by the Court of Appeal". A number of grounds for this belief are set out including that Vos LJ had said on the first morning that "the judge had found that the Appellants were a bunch of crooks" and that "they had been hoist by their own petard", that the judges had not read any of the documents and witness statements, that they had interrupted the submissions of counsel for the appellants, and that the court had a number of factual misunderstandings.
In this judgment, we do not propose to deal with the challenges to the correctness of our judgments. We have refused permission to appeal, and it is now open to the appellants, if they wish, to apply to the Supreme Court for that permission. If they are granted permission, the Supreme Court will no doubt evaluate those challenges. Suffice it to say that, save in respect of one matter that we shall mention in a moment, we stand by our judgments. We think that the other criticisms of Vos LJ's judgment summarised in paragraph 80 of counsel's skeleton argument are either simply wrong or at least insubstantial, semantic or one-sided.
In dealing with the appellants' application, we would start by noting that this is not the first time that these appellants have attacked the behaviour of the court. As was recorded in paragraph 70 of Vos LJ's judgment, the appellants repeatedly suggested that the judge had...
To continue reading
Request your trial