Keith Smeaton v Lesley C Butcher and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LATHAM |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 18 |
| Docket Number | A2/2000/6453 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 January 2000 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
(LORD JUSTICE CLARKE & LORD JUSTICE LATHAM)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Latham
A2/2000/6453
The Applicant appeared in person
MR P DIXON (instructed by Malcolm Dear Whitfield Evans, Harrow, Middlesex HA3 8RR) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
( )
Friday, 12th January 2000
In this application Mr Smeaton seeks a stay of execution of consequential orders arising out of a judgment given on 9th May when this court dismissed an appeal by Mr Smeaton from an order of Judge Chapman, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 9th July 1999, which had the effect of upholding the order of Master Ungley striking out the claimant's claim for damages for libel against the second and third defendants. In his judgment Clark LJ set out fully the reasons which this court felt justified the dismissal of the appeal in terms which should make it plain that this court considered that the claimant's claim had no prospect whatsoever of success as a matter of law.
The stay of execution which Mr Smeaton seeks today is based upon two propositions. First, he wishes to appeal to the House of Lords; and secondly, there is ongoing litigation between him and the defendants in the Watford County Court which he is confident should produce an award of damages which would be able to offset, at least in part (it may be wholly), any liability he may have under the consequential orders arising out of the appeal.
As far as the appeal to the House of Lords is concerned there is no existing petition for leave to appeal. I have been told by Mr Smeaton that he has sought legal advice but was told by solicitors that they would require £5,000 before they could even consider applying for legal aid. There must be some misunderstanding about that. If he was in fact considered by the solicitors to justify legal aid, they would not have been entitled to ask for any money up front. In those circumstances it is a slightly puzzling assertion on his part. As far as the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skidmore v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust
...EWCA Civ 18" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> [2001] EWCA Civ 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Keene Sir Ch......