Mahomed and Another v Morris and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 2000 |
| Date | 03 February 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Schiemann and Mr Justice Wilson
Practice - single lord justice refusing permission to appeal - not disqualified from full court hearing of substantive appeal
Where a single lord justice refused on paper an application for permission to appeal and did not then conduct the oral hearing which overturned that decision, he was not precluded from appearing in the full court hearing the substantive appeal once permission had been granted by another lord justice.
It was expressly contemplated in Practice Direction: (Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) ((1999) 1 WLR 1027) that a single lord justice would, normally, make the substantive decision on the oral hearing for permission and it would be wholly illogical if, once permission were granted, the original lord justice had to recuse himself.
The Court of Appeal so stated on a preliminary issue when refusing a request by Abdul and Mohammed Mahomed that Lord Justice Peter Gibson recuse himself from their appeal against Mr Justice Jacob's striking out on March 3, 1999 of their application in the liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation) because he had dealt with their application for permission to appeal in August 1999. The defendants, Mr Christopher Morris, Mr John Richards and Mr Stephen Akers, were the joint liquidators of BCCI.
Miss Catherine Newman, QC and Mr Matthew Collings for the appellants; Mr Richard Snowden for the liquidators.
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON said that the Practice Direction (at p 1068) allowed for a single lord justice to deal with permission to appeal on paper and, if mindful to refuse, to send a prescribed letter informing the party that "wherever possible the assigned lord justice, that is, the one minded to refuse permission, would conduct the oral hearing alone or with another lord justice".
The propriety of that procedure was upheld in Khreino v Khreino (No 1)UNK (Constitution of Court) ((2000) FCR 75).
His Lordship had dealt with the case in the long vacation and when the applicants sought an oral hearing the application was heard by another lord justice who granted limited permission on an authority not earlier before his Lordship.
When the appeal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
(1) Iceberg Transport SA; (2) Space Incorporated SA; (3) Aquarius Holdings Ltd; (4) Orbital Recovery Corporation; (5) One World Properties SA; (6) Comverge Ltd; (7) The Smaller World Foundation v Meade Malone (in his capacity as Liquidator of Gold & Appel Transfer SA)
...Re Edennote Ltd; Tottenham Hotspur plc and others v Ryman and another [1996] 2 BCLC 389, C.C. 4. Mahomed and another v Morris and others [2002] 2 BCLC 536. 5. Re Hans Place Ltd [1993] BCLC 768. 6. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1947] 2 All ER 680. 7. Leon v York......
-
R and Another Nina Mclellan (Claimants) Bracknell Forest District Council (Defendant) The Department of The Environment, Transport and Another (Interested Party)
... ... in a democratic society for, inter alia, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; and (c) proportional in all the circumstances. (4) The court itself as a public ... ...
- Angelo Perotti v Collyer-bristow (A Firm)and Another (Respondents/Defendants)