[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Tan v Slot [2001] EWCA Civ 725 (15 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/725.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 725

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM GUILFORD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE SLEEMAN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Tuesday, 15th May 2001

Tuesday, 15th May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is an application to reinstate an application for permission to appeal. The application is made by Mrs Anne Slot in person.
2. The application for permission to appeal was originally set down as long ago as 10th January 1999. Mrs Slot wished to appeal against an order made in litigation between Miss Lina Tan, who is the plaintiff, and Mrs Anne Slot as the defendant. The order which she wished to appeal was that of His Honour Judge Sleeman made on 3rd June 1998. He made an order in the Guilford County Court dismissing Mrs Slot's appeal against the order of District Judge Williams made on 3rd December 1997. The order of the District Judge directed the matter be set down for arbitration, that there be disclosure of a document and that Mrs Slot's counterclaim for damages for time, stress and worry be struck out. A direction was then given for the exchange of witness statements in relation to the arbitration.
3. His Honour Judge Sleeman dismissed that appeal and dismissed Mrs Slot's application for leave to amend her counterclaim to add her husband as a party and to make allegations of abuse of civil process and malicious falsehood. His Honour Judge Sleeman having refused permission to appeal, Mrs Slot then sought the permission of this Court.
4. The application came before Evans LJ and Hidden J on 10th February 1999. Mrs Slot did not appear and the application was dismissed. Mrs Slot had written to the Court of Appeal saying that she would be on holiday until the third week in January 1999. So the matter was adjourned and re-fixed for a date in February. Mrs Slot was sent a letter informing her of the adjourned application on 10th February. A reply was sent saying that Mr and Mrs Slot were still in the United States and their return had to be postponed until after 10th March. Mr Peters, who was writing on their behalf, asked for the case to be re-listed after that date. Evans LJ refused the application for the adjournment. He directed that Mr Peters should appear to explain the absence of Mrs and Mrs Slot who were still away. A warning was given that the court might deal with that matter in the absence of Mr and Mrs Slot.
5. This direction was passed by the listing office on 5th February 1999 to Mr Peters. When the matter came on, on 10th February, Mr Peters did not attend nor did Mr or Mrs Slot. So the application was dismissed. Mr Peters wrote to the Court of Appeal on 17th February explaining that he had had the flu and again requested re-listing the matter in late March.
6. On 14th April 1999 the Civil Appeals Office wrote to Mrs Slot informing her that the Court had dismissed her application as she had failed to appear. The letter explained that the Court required a written explanation of the failure to attend and a formal request to renew her application and confirmation that she would attend. Further letters were written asking Mrs Slot if she still wished to proceed. She replied saying that she had not received an earlier letter and that Mr Peters had failed to contact them about the hearing. Mrs Slot stated she was to go into hospital. She wished the matter to be re-listed in the autumn. There was further correspondence.
7. It then appears that Mrs Slot wrote to the Court of Appeal at the end of March 2000, thanking the Court for the order which she noted was dated 8th March 2000 and saying that she had not received a date for the hearing as she would have had to attend. She now asked for a new hearing date stating that she had had no trouble receiving things from the Court until today.
8. On 5th April the Civil Appeals Office sent a form for an application to be reinstated. That application was filled in by Mrs Slot. It is dated 6th April 2000. The application to reinstate referred to the fact that Mrs Slot stated that she had received the judgment of 10th February 1999 the previous week and that was the first she knew of it. She said she had not received any notice of the hearing and she asked the Court to check whether one was sent. On 3rd May 2000 the Court Service wrote to Mrs Slot waiving the fees for her application. She then wrote to the Civil Appeals Office requesting an application for a stay of execution as the case in the County Court had been listed for June 2000.
9. Mrs Slot attends this morning to have this matter reinstated. She informs me that she wants this appeal to be heard. It is only a small matter and she is particularly concerned about the orders made by the district judge and His Honour Judge Sleeman in relation to the striking out of her counterclaim and the refusal to allow her to amend it.
10. I am not satisfied however, by what appears in the papers or by what Mrs Slot has told me that she has given a satisfactory explanation which excuses her from the serious delay which has occurred in relation to the pursuit of her application. It appears that matters were left in the hands of Mr Peters and he did not attend the hearing of the court on 10th February 1999 or arrange for anyone else to be present. There has also been serious delay in pursuing this matter of having the application for reinstatement heard. It seems to me that it would not be just, as between Miss Tan and Mrs Slot, for this application now to be reinstated. It was dismissed over two years ago.
11. As far as Miss Tan is conerned, Mrs Slot said she will suffer no prejudice, but if I allow this matter to be reinstated she will suffer the prejudice of having a case, which as far as she was concerned had come to an end two years ago, revived. The position is, particularly since the civil procedure rules came into force, that matters must proceed in accordance with the rules. It requires exceptional circumstances to allow a case, where the application was dismissed so long ago and there has been such delay in the pursuit of the application to reinstate, to be revived. In the circumstances I do not think that it would be fair or just between these parties to allow Mrs Slot to reinstate her application for permission to appeal. The application is refused.
(Application for permission to appeal refused)