BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Pearce -v- Treasurer of the States [2017] JCA 095 (19 June 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_095.html Cite as: [2017] JCA 95, [2017] JCA 095 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
John Vandeleur Martin, Q.C., sitting as a Single Judge |
|||
|
Between |
Darius James Pearce trading as Nigel Pearce and Sons, Jewellers |
Appellant |
|
|
|
And |
Treasurer of the States |
Respondent |
|
|
judgment
martin ja:
1. On 7 November 2016 McNeill JA, sitting as a single judge of this court, dismissed (Pearce-v-Treasurer of the States [2016] JCA 200) an application by Darius James Pearce for an extension of time within which to appeal a decision of the Royal Court.
2. Mr Pearce now seeks leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against McNeill JA's decision. The application has been referred to me, also acting as a single judge of this court, for initial consideration.
3. In ordinary circumstances, the proper course to be adopted by a litigant who wishes to challenge a decision of a single judge is to apply to the full court under article 18(2) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961 to discharge or vary the single judge's decision. If the circumstances were ordinary, I would treat Mr Pearce's application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee as an application under article 18(2) and would refer it to the full court for decision.
4. However, the circumstances are not ordinary. Although McNeill JA's decision was in form that Mr Pearce should be refused an extension of time for leave to appeal, it necessarily amounted to a decision that leave to appeal should itself be refused. Article 13(3) of the 1961 Law provides that the decision of a single judge on an application for leave to appeal is final. That means that there is no ability to seek discharge or variation of the decision under article 18(2) of the Law, and no ability to appeal the decision to the Judicial Committee.
5. It follows that Mr Pearce's application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council cannot be granted by the Court of Appeal or considered under article 18(2) of the Law. It is therefore dismissed.
