Robinson v Nichols (t/a Redman Nichols), Court of Appeal - Civil Division, February 18, 2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 262

Resolution Date:February 18, 2002
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Robinson v Nichols (t/a Redman Nichols)

B1/2001/2879Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 262IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM LEEDS COUNTY COURT(His Honour Judge Cockroft) Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 18th February 2002B e f o r e:LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY- - - - - -JAMES ROBINSON Claimant/Applicant- v -ANDREW NICHOLS(TRADING AS REDMAN NICHOLS) Defendant/Respondent- - - - - -(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes ofSmith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,London EC4A 2AGTel: 0171 421 4040Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)- - - - - -The Applicant appeared in person.The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.- - - - - -J U D G M E N TSMITH BERNALMonday, 18th February 2002 1. LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Judgment was given below in this case on 11th September 2001. The Appellant's Notice is dated 11th October. The reason which Mr Robinson gives is that Leeds County Court managed to lose the papers but to bank his cheque. That seems to me to be quite sufficient to excuse his delay and to make it unjust to refuse to enlarge time. So I readily extend his time for making this application. 2. The initial problem against which Mr Robinson seeks redress is the striking out of his claim against Redman Nichols, who are insolvency practitioners, at a point of time when Mr Robinson was ill and unable to attend court. With permission, he appealed to Judge Cockroft. Judge Cockroft decided all the issues afresh. It is now Mr Robinson's complaint that the judge did so upon witness statements which were contentious and ought to have been the subject of full examination and cross-examination. 3. Originally Mr Robinson sought and got permission to appeal to the Queen's Bench Division from Ouseley J. It is now accepted that the appeal lies, if anywhere, to this court. But Mr Robinson, perfectly reasonably, relies on Ouseley J's decision in favour of the grant of permission to appeal as good grounds for saying that I, likewise, should give permission to appeal. 4. I must therefore go into a little more detail. 5. Mr Robinson sued the defendant insolvency practitioner for conversion of a cheque and for negligence in two respects in acting as the liquidator of one of Mr Robinson's companies called S Rudd & Son Ltd. The 25th January 2001 was fixed as the hearing date before the District Judge of Mr Robinson's application for summary judgment. Mr Robinson was, as I am fully prepared to accept...

To continue reading