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 £5, 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] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Ashton Graham (A Firm) v Sherman [2002] EWCA Civ 1794 (2 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1794.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1794 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Rimer)
Strand London, WC2 Monday, 2 December 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ASHTON GRAHAM (A FIRM) | Claimants/Respondents | |
-v- | ||
ROBERT GREY SHERMAN | Defendant/Applicant |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"UPON THE APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE of the Defendant for an Order to set aside the order of Master Bowles dated 6 September 2001 pending his Application for permission to appeal from the said Order
AND UPON HEARING the Defendant in person
IT IS ORDERED that the said Application be dismissed."
Mr Sherman was subsequently refused permission to appeal by Rimer J.
"Mr Sherman tells me that, since the Registrar's order, the claimant has presented a petition for his bankruptcy. But the bankruptcy petition has not yet been heard. Mr Sherman tells me that it is due to be heard on 20th May. I infer that the application today is motivated by desire to improve Mr Sherman's position on the return date of that hearing."
It will be noted, as I have pointed out, that subsequent to the hearing before Rimer J, Mr Sherman made an attempt to have the bankruptcy hearing adjourned, but that application was unsuccessful. It seems to me that Rimer J's observations in that paragraph that I have read were entirely justified. The learned judge continued:
"The history I have outlined provides no explanation at all as to why now, on 26th April, it has suddenly become appropriate to apply to stay execution of an order made as long ago as 6th September. In any event it would be wholly wrong to do so on an application of which no proper notice has been given to the claimant. I have no doubt at all that the claimant would have a good deal to say as to why no stay should be ordered.
I propose therefore to refuse this without notice application, no grounds having been disclosed to justify it. If Mr Sherman wishes to renew his application on proper prior notice to the claimant, then in principle he would be entitled to do so. I propose to make no order."
Mr Sherman did not avail himself of the suggestion there made by the learned judge.