Salter R & Company v Ghosh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER of THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE STAMP |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Civ J0420-1 |
| Date | 20 April 1971 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1971] EWCA Civ J0420-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Edmund Davies and
Lord Justice Stamp.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by defendant from order of His Honour Judge Leslie at Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court on 5th February, 1971.
Mr. DAVID PITMAN (instructed by Messrs. Mascarenhas & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Defendant.
Mr. J. J. DAVIES (instructed by Messrs. David Montague & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiffs.
Salter Rex & Co. are auctioneers and valuers. They brought an action in the County Court against Dr. Ghosh claiming £47 for their fees. After a trial going over two days, the Judge gave judgment on 3th May, 1970, for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed. Seven months later, Dr. Ghosh, after some intervening matters which I need not detail, applied to the County Court on 7th December, 1970, for a new trial. In applying for a new trial, Dr. Ghosh said that the Judge had not appreciated the significance of a receipt of 16th October, 1969. On 5th February, 1971, the Judge refused to grant a new trial. He said he certainly did consider the receipt: and, in any case, it would not have made any difference to his decision because he based his decision on a later transaction.
Then Dr. Ghosh sought to appeal from that refusal. Unfortunately, the lawyers advising Dr. Ghosh made a mistake. They thought it was a final appeal and that they had six weeks in which to appeal. They allowed four weeks to pass, and then on 3rd March, 1971, they gave notice of appeal. They sought to lodge it with the officer of the Court; but the officer of the Court refused to accept it. He said it was an interlocutory appeal and not a final appeal; and that it ought to be lodged and set down within fourteen days and not six weeks.
There is a note in the White Book under Order 59, Role 4, from which it appears that different tests have been stated from time to time as to what is final and what is interlocutory. In ( Standard Discount Co. v. Otard de la Grange 1877) 3 Common Pleas Division 67; and Salaman v. Warner (1891) 1 Q. B. 734, Lord Esher said that the test was the nature of the application to theCourt: and not the nature of the order which the Court eventually made. But in Bozson v. Altrincham Urban Distrist Council (1903) 1 K. B. 547, the Court said that the test was the nature of the order as made. Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice, said that: '….the test is whether the judgment or order as made finally disposed of the rights of the parties." Lord Alverstone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moran v Lloyd's
...but that is not yet the case, although there is power to make rules to this effect under section 60 (1) of the 1981 Act. 9In Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh (1971) 2 Queen's Bench 597 Lord Denning, M.R., with the agreement of Lords Justices Edmund Davies and Stamp, drew attention to the two ......
-
White v Brunton
...any rule of general application. 7 The next occasion upon which the problem was looked at on broad lines of principle was in Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh (1971) 2 Queen's Bench 597 where Lord Denning, M.R., with the agreement of Lord Justices Edmund-Davies and Stamp, considered and contras......
-
Re C
...E.R. 549. (6) Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., [1978] A.C. 547; [1978] 1 All E.R. 434. (7) Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh, [1971] 2 Q.B. 597; [1971] 2 All E.R. 865, dictum of Lord Denning, M.R. applied. (8) U.S. v. Carver, 1980–83 CILR 297. (9) White v. Brunton, [1984] Q.B. 570;......
-
Lloyds Bank Intl (Cayman) Ltd v Byleven Corporation SA
...dicta of Lord Diplock considered. (2) -Iran Nabuvat, The, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1115; [1990] 3 All E.R. 9. (3) -Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh, [1971] 2 Q.B. 597; [1971] 2 All E.R. 865, followed. (4) -Universal & Surety Co. Ltd., In re, 1992–93 CILR 157, applied. (5) -White v. Brunton, [1984] Q.B. 570......
-
Court Of Appeal Addresses Novel Question Of Appellate Jurisdiction In Class Proceedings
...for practitioners to do is to look up the practice books and see what has been decided on the point" (Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh, [1971] 2 All E.R. 865 (C.A.)). Where the practice books are silent, as in Johnson, resort must be to first Background of Johnson Johnson involved a certified clas......
-
Court Of Appeal Addresses Novel Question Of Appellate Jurisdiction In Class Proceedings
...for practitioners to do is to look up the practice books and see what has been decided on the point" (Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh, [1971] 2 All E.R. 865 (C.A.)). Where the practice books are silent, as in Johnson, resort must be to first Background of Johnson Johnson involved a certified clas......
-
Preliminary Sections
...366 Salihu Gwonto & Ors. v. The State (1983) 3 S.C. 62 at 67. .......................... 302 Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh (1971) 2 All E.R. 865. 149 Samson Okoruwa & Anor v. The State (1975) 5 S.C. 23 at 28. ...................... 366 Sandy v. Hotogua & Anor (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 18 at 20. ............
-
Courts 2
...that “It is impossible to lay down any principle about what is final or what is interlocutory.” See Salter Rex and Company v. Ghosh (1971) 2 All E.R. 865 at page 866.” - Per Tobi, J.C.A. in Nwokedi v. U.B.N. Plc. Suit No. CA/E/49M/97; (1997) 8 N.W.L.R (Pt 517) 407 at 419. 1218. Instances wh......
-
Civil Appeals in Ontario: How the Interlocutory/Final Distinction Became So Complicated and the Case for a Simple Solution.
...4 DLR 580 (CA); Sopinka, Gelowitz & Rankin, supra note 6 at [section][section] 1.59-1.60. (53.) Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh, [ 1971 ] 2 All ER 865 at 866, [1971] 2 QB 597 (CA) [Salter Rex]. See Sopinka, Gelowitz & Rankin, supra note 6 at [section] (54.) Salter Rex, supra note 53 at ......