Kevin Osler v Marlene Osler & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 516
Lloyd Dorian Williams v Gerwyn Lloyd Williams & Ors
23 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1465
Court of Appeal
A man appealed a court decision about farm ownership. He was initially allowed to appeal on some points, but not others. A higher court decided he couldn't appeal on the extra points he wanted, because the initial decision was final and he hadn't shown any exceptional reasons to change it.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Dorian Williams appealed a High Court decision dismissing his claim to two farms.
- •His claim was based on a partnership agreement and proprietary estoppel.
- •Lewison LJ initially granted permission to appeal on Grounds 3 and 5, but later clarified the scope of permission.
- •Ground 3 concerned the partnership aspect of the Cefn Coed farm; Ground 5 concerned the beneficial ownership of Cefn Coed.
- •The appellant sought to appeal the judge's decision on the partnership issue relating to Cefn Coed (Ground 3).
- •The appellant also sought an extension of time to file a revised skeleton argument.
Legal Principles
Slip Rule (CPR 40.12): The court may correct accidental slips or omissions in judgments or orders.
CPR r 40.12
Permission to Appeal (CPR 52.5, 52.6): Permission to appeal is granted only where there's a real prospect of success or other compelling reasons; the Court of Appeal can limit issues and impose conditions.
CPR r 52.5, 52.6
Reopening Final Appeals (CPR 52.30): The Court of Appeal will not reopen a final determination of an appeal unless it's necessary to avoid real injustice, circumstances are exceptional, and there's no alternative remedy.
CPR r 52.30
Limited Grounds of Appeal: Where permission to appeal is given on limited grounds, it's not open to an appellant to broaden the grounds at the hearing of the appeal.
McHugh v McHugh [2014] EWCA Civ 1671
Outcomes
The appeal court held that Mr. Williams did not have permission to appeal on Ground 3.
Lewison LJ corrected his initial order under the slip rule, removing Ground 3 from the permitted grounds of appeal. The court held that the decision granting limited permission was a final determination, and there were no exceptional circumstances under CPR 52.30 to justify reopening it.
The Court of Appeal refused the appellant's application to rely on Ground 3 at the substantive appeal hearing.
The court found that once permission to appeal is granted on limited grounds, permission on other grounds is implicitly refused. The court reaffirmed the established principle that an appellant cannot broaden the grounds of appeal at the substantive hearing, unless under the exceptional circumstances of CPR 52.30 which were not met here.
Similar Cases
LA (Albania), R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)
[2023] EWCA Civ 1337
Julie Amanda Mate v Shirley Clare Mate & Ors
[2023] EWHC 675 (Ch)
Michael Earl Wilson v John Forster Emmott
[2023] EWHC 2415 (KB)
Bryce, R (on the application of) v The Ministry of Justice
[2023] EWHC 2778 (Admin)