Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Applications for leave to appeal paragraph 4 of the Act of the Royal Court dated 19 th April 2013 and paragraph 1 of the Act of the Royal Court dated 10 th May, 2013, and for stays in connection with both Orders pending determination of the appeal.
There are two applications before me by the Appellants, following the refusal of leave by Commissioner Clyde Smith. The applications are supported by a detailed Skeleton Argument from Advocate MacRae (with 7 Folders of documents and case-law and text book references), and by a Skeleton Argument from Advocate Robinson (with a further Folder). Both advocates supplemented their written submissions with very helpful oral argument, although somewhat time-curtailed.
First, the Appellants seek the grant of leave to appeal paragraph 4 of the Act of Court dated 19 th April 2013, and paragraph 25 of the decision on that date. Second, they seek the grant of leave to appeal paragraph 1 of the Act of Court dated 10 th May 2013. There are connected applications for the Court to order a stay of the Acts of Court (and extract from the decision), pending determination of the appeals.
I have concluded that leave should not be granted in relation to the 19 th April Act of Court and decision. It follows that the question of stay does not arise. I have also concluded that leave should be granted to appeal paragraph 1 of the 10 th May Act of Court, but there should be no stay. I set out below my brief reasons for rejecting the arguments in relation to the April 19 th order and decision. As I am granting leave in relation to the May 10 th decision I will not give any reasons, but I will explain why I have declined to grant a stay.
Paragraph 4 of the 19 th April 2013 Act of Court requires the Appellants to file a full answer to the Respondents' Order of Justice dated 18 th January 2013 on or before 29 th May 2013. The challenged part of the decision is in paragraph 25 and confined to the words "there should be (subject to on-going review) no interruption of the proper progress of the substantive case to trial".
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.