Maile v Manchester City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1997 |
| Date | 26 November 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Practice - decision on a case stated - no right of appeal
A litigant had no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court judge's final decision on a case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Hutchison and Lord Justice Thorpe) so held on October 16 when refusing to entertain an appeal by Mr Christopher Maile from the dismissal by Mr Justice Laws on March 20, 1997, of his appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Mr James Prowse, acting stipendiary magistrate, in relation to an application by Manchester City Council under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 to stop up a number of footpaths at New Bank Street Estate, Longsight.
LORD JUSTICE HUTCHISON said that it was clear that the effect of the provisions of section 18 and 28A, as inserted by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993, of the Supreme Court Act 1981 was to prohibit any appeal from the judge's decision in relation both to findings of fact and of law.
Mr Maile was unable to advert the difficulty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westminster City Council v O'Reilly
...substituted by the Access to Justice Act 1999 itself. This is not new ground. This court considered this jurisdictional issue in Maile v Manchester City Council on 16 October 1997 (unreported, CA No QBCOF 97/0537/D). In that case the court held that the provision meant what it said and coul......
-
Farley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (No 2); Farley v Child Support Agency
...appears very straightforward. There were the previous authorities of this court in Horseferry Road Justices v Westminster and Maile v Manchester City Council (16 October 1997). In Horseferry Road Justices v Westminster Auld LJ, who gave the judgment which was agreed with by the other member......
-
Stevens v Dorset County Council
...is fulfilled." 22 The concept of substantial compliance was accepted by Laws J in Maile v. Manchester City Council, 20th March 1997 (1997) 74 P & CR 443. It seems to me that the Justices were entitled to find substantial compliance. It further seems to me is that that was a finding of fact ......
-
R Spice and Others v Leeds City Council
...the land in question was used for passing and re-passing. 22 I should finally refer to the decision in Maile v Manchester City Council [1997] 74 P&CR 443, in which Laws J considered section 116 in the context of an area of land crisscrossed by footpaths on a housing estate. The Manchester C......
-
Public Rights of Way
...within HA 1980, s 116 means unnecessary for use as a highway, i.e. to pass and re-pass. 341 Maille v Manchester City Council (1997) 74 P & CR 443 at 451. 342 See Gravesham Borough Council v Wilson and Another [1983] JPL 607. 343 HA 1980, s 116(3). 586 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook......
-
Stopping up and Diversion Orders
...within HA 1980, s 116 means unnecessary for use as a highway, i.e. to pass and repass. 78 Maille v Manchester City Council (1997) 74 P & CR 443 at 451. 79 See Gravesham Borough Council v Wilson and Another [1983] JPL 607, (1983) The Times , March 1983. 80 HA 1980, s 116(3). 81 HA 1980, s 11......