Patterson v Ellis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J0527-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 27 May 1957 |
[1957] EWCA Civ J0527-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Lord Chief Justice of England
(Lord Goddard), And
Mr. Justice Devlin
Mr. L.K.E. BORBHAM (instructed by Messrs. W. H. Matthews & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
Mr. K.R. BAGNALL (instructed by Messrs. Bowles & Co., Epsom, Surrey) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (plaintiffs).
This is an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Gordon Clark, before whom an application was made to remove an action based on fraudulent misrepresentation from the Epsom County Court into the High Court. The application was made pursuant to section 44 of the County Courts Act, 1934, which provides that a notice may be given by the defendant flaying that be objects to the case being tried in the County Court and wishes it removed, and that "where such a notice is given, the Judge shall order that the action be transferred to the High Court, if (a) the defendant (unless exempted by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947)" (with which I need not deal) "gives security approved by the Registrar for the amount claimed and the costs of trial in the High Court, not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of £430; and (b) the judge certifies that in his opinion some important question of law or fact is likely to arise".
I need not go through all the pleadings in the case for the purposes of this application; but the particulars of Claim which are filed seem to me to show that this is an action of considerable complication. It relates to title to land; it relates to the construction of a curious provision in a lease or agreement; it relates to questions of damage, and as to whether a company can recover the damages which are claimed - or perhaps It would be more accurate to say whether the damage suffered, if any, is suffered by the Plaintiffs or by a company in which they are shareholders. Altogether the case looks to be one of very considerable complexity.
The learned Judge refused the application, and has given his reasons for so doing. His reasons are these. He says: "This is a case of difficulty and of obvious importance to the parties, and one which I would gladly transfer the burden of to another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tan Kok Ing v Tan Swee Meng & 3 Others
...to establish that Mr Tan’s claim was complex. 18. The next case which Mr Gomez relied on was Patterson and others v Ellis and another [1957] 1 WLR 857. In that case, the relevant provision was s 44(2)(b) of the County Courts Act which allowed a transfer of proceedings in a County Court to t......
-
Lee Chye Chong v SBS Transit Ltd
...(folld) Lim Choon Seng v Lim Poh Kwee [2020] 5 MLJ 587 (refd) Ng Djoni v Miranda Joseph Jude [2018] 5 SLR 670 (distd) Patterson v Ellis [1957] 1 WLR 857 (refd) Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd v Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin [2012] 3 SLR 1003 (folld) Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng [2005] 2 SLR(R) 546; ......
- R v Victor Oke
-
Tan Kok Ing v Tan Swee Meng & 3 Others
...to establish that Mr Tan’s claim was complex. 18. The next case which Mr Gomez relied on was Patterson and others v Ellis and another [1957] 1 WLR 857. In that case, the relevant provision was s 44(2)(b) of the County Courts Act which allowed a transfer of proceedings in a County Court to t......
-
Civil Procedure
...as well. 6.8 In coming to this conclusion, the High Court preferred the first instance decision of Gordon Clark J in Patterson v Ellis[1957] 1 WLR 857 over the contrary decision of the English Court of Appeal in the same case. The English Court of Appeal”s view was that a point of law might......