0370 270 6000

Foenander v Bond Lewis & Co, Court of Appeal

29 May 2001
The issues

Practice – Extensions Of Time – Litigants In Person – Second Appeal

The facts

Claimant litigant in person sought leave to appeal against a refusal by the Judge to appeal out of time. He had issued proceedings of professional negligence against the Defendant. The action had been struck out. Under the former regime he had the right to appeal to a Judge within 5 days but he delayed for 2 weeks. This led to his application for an extension of time for appeal being refused. He then had the right to seek permission to appeal against the Judge’s order but he did not exercise that right.

In May 2000 the new appeals regime was introduced. There is now no longer appeal as of right against an order of the Master. The Claimant brought a series of attempts to appeal or apply for extensions of time to appeal, all of which were dismissed. However, the Civil Appeal Office accepted the Notice of Appeal against the order made by the Judge for leave to appeal against the refusal to appeal out of time.

The decision

If a lower Court and an Appeal Court at a lower level decided that a proposed appeal had no real prospects of success and there was no other reason why the appeal should be heard then there was no further appeal. This was the principal set down in Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. However, that principal did not apply to this case. This was not a second appeal because the matter decided by the Judge was the extension of time for appeal against the striking out order which was a different matter from that which the Master decided. This order had been made by the Judge exercising his discretion and nobody else had the power to consider this exercise of discretion. In these circumstances provided that permission to appeal was granted, the Judge’s order was appealable to the Court of Appeal.

In these circumstances provided that permission to appeal was granted, the Judge’s order was appealable to the Court of Appeal.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up