Middleton v Middleton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 December 1993 |
| Date | 27 December 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Legal aid - time limit - court has no power to extend
The court had no power to grant an extension of the 21-day time limit laid down in regulation 142 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations (SI 1989 No 339) in which a successful unassisted party to had file an affidavit of costs and resources in order to make an application for costs out of the legal aid fund.
The power to make extensions was vested only in the area director pursuant to regulation 7.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Balcombe, Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Sir Tasker Watkins) so held on December 14 in allowing an appeal brought by the Legal Aid Board from the decision of Mr Justice Thorpe on May 25, 1993 that the court had power to extend the time limit on appeal from District Judge Bird on January 22, 1993.
LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON said that it was neither satisfactory nor appropriate that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shreem Holdings Inc. v. Barr Picard, 2014 ABQB 112
...Centrale v. Alexandre G. Tsaviliris & Sons Maritime Co., [1966] 1 W.L.R. 774 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29]. Middleton v. Middleton, [1994] 3 All E.R. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]. Langley v. North West Water Authority, [1991] 1 W.L.R. 697 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]. Moore v. Assignmen......
-
R v Akpalialuk,
...of this power, inherent jurisdiction does not operate where Parliament or the Legislature has acted”); Middleton v. Middleton, [1994] 3 All E.R. 236, 242-43 (C.A. 1993) (a court has no inherent jurisdiction to allow a step to be taken outside the time limits set out in the applicable......
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A
-
Stylo Medical Services Limited v Hum Hospitality Limited
...Co Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL [1998] HCA 13, (1988) 165 CLR 268, (1988) 77 ALR 411. See for example Middleton v Middleton [1994] 3 All ER 236 (CA) at 243, dealing with limits prescribed by regulation. R v Bloomsbury, above n 3, at 900. [26] I therefore also reject Mr Parmenter’s su......