Brown v The Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth Mother & Ors, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, December 17, 2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 1467

Resolution Date:December 17, 2007
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Brown v The Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth Mother & Ors
 
FREE EXCERPT

Case No: B4/2007/1702A

Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Civ 1467

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY DIVISION

(THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Monday, 17th December 2007

Before:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

and

LORD JUSTICE DYSON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr G Robertson QC (instructed by David Price Solicitors & Advocates) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Mr F Hinks QC and Mr J Adkin (instructed by Farrer & Co) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Respondents. Mr J Lofthouse (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Lord Justice Thorpe:

  1. Mr Hinks, supported by Mr Lofthouse, seeks the reconsideration of the direction or invitation given on the previous occasion when we sat, to put before the court the documents that were before the former President when she made the two sealing up orders and any reasons given for her decisions. Mr Hinks's objection is very simple. He says that there was only one issue before the President, that is whether the plaintiff had locus. The President decided that issue in his favour, and, accordingly, the challenge in the Court of Appeal can only be to that one issue.

  2. The information before the court today is very much fuller than it was when we sat previously, and of course we have the advantage of submissions from all parties. In my judgment, Mr Hinks has made good his submission that the only issue before the President truly was the issue of locus. He has shown us the summons to strike out and the affidavit in support and we can see from the transcript that that is clearly the basis upon which he argued his case.

  3. It seems to me that some confusion has resulted from the reserved judgment of the President. It is by no means confined to that one single and simple issue. We can see that in paragraph 21 of his judgment he records Mr Robertson as advancing two submissions: first, the plaintiff's asserted right as a member of the public to inspect, under sections 124...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL