Lane v Esdaile
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Year | 1891 |
| Date | 1891 |
Practice - Extension of Time to Appeal -
No appeal lies to this House from a refusal of the Court of Appeal to grant special leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court in a case where the time limited (by Order LVIII, rule 15) for appealing has expired. Such a refusal is not an order or judgment of the Court of Appeal within the meaning of s. 3 of the
APPEAL against a decision of the Court of AppealF1.
In July 1885 Kay J. gave judgment for the plaintiffs in an action against several defendants, two of whom were the present appellants. Some of the defendants (not including the present appellants) appealed to the Court of Appeal, and being unsuccessful in that Court appealed again to this House, where on the 10th of August 1888 they succeeded in reversing the judgments below against themF2. In December 1888 the present appellants applied to the Court of Appeal for special leave to appeal against the judgment of July 1885. This application was eventually (on the 23rd of January 1889) refused by the Court of Appeal (Cotton, Lindley, and Lopes L.JJ.), the Court making no orderF1. The present appeal was against that refusal.
May 4. Sir H. James Q.C. (Ashton Cross and Frederick Low with him) for the appellants dealt first with the preliminary objection that no appeal lay to this House from such a refusal, and contended that under the
Byrne Q.C. and H. B. Howard for the respondents contended that no appeal lay.
LORD HALSBURY L.C.: —
My Lords, I am of opinion that this preliminary objection ought to prevail. An appeal is not to be presumed but must be given. I do not mean to say that it must be given by express words, but it must be given in some form or other in which it can be said that it is affirmatively given and not presumed. In the particular case now before your Lordships the appeal is certainly not given in express words. The words used are “leave of the Court”; and although it may be that in some sense the leave of the Court, whether it is given or withheld, becomes an order (that I will not stay to discuss), that is not the ordinary mode in which it would be described. It is to be something that is done by the order of the Court. I confess myself I should hesitate if it was only to turn upon the question of language, because although a thing might be called an order, or might be called a judgment, or might be called a rule, or might be called a decree, it might well be that nevertheless by reason of the context it would come within the obvious meaning and purpose of the statute; so that although it was no one of those things in name it might be one of those things in substance, and therefore would come within the general provision that an appeal should lie.
But when I look not only at the language used, but at the substance and meaning of the provision, it seems to me that to give an appeal in this case would defeat the whole object and purview of the order or rule itself, because it is obvious that what was there intended by the Legislature was that there should be in some form or other a power to stop an appeal — that there should not be an appeal unless some particular body pointed out by...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
R (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (No 1)
...for judicial review under RSC Ord 53. He relies upon the construction of section 3 of the Act of 1876 which was approved by this House in Lane v Esdaile [1891] AC 210…" Three points need to be noted about this statement. First, Lane v Esdaile is only authority for the general proposition t......
-
Rickards v Rickards
...for speculation. Urgent remedial action was required and sought and the Supreme Court Act provided a speedy and convenient vehicle. 26 Lane v. Esdaile has been applied in numerous cases as binding authority for the more limited proposition that "wherever power is given to a legal authorit......
- Lam Kong Company Ltd v Thong Guan Company Pte Ltd
-
Aden Refinery Company Ltd v Ugland Management Company Ltd
...to this court, Mr. Eder is confronted not with a statutory ouster of jurisdiction, but with a decision of the House of Lords in Lane v. Esdaile [1891] A.C. 210. There the House of Lords declined jurisdiction when Mr. Lane sought in December 1888 to appeal against a decision of the Court of ......