Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v JF Emmott & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 86
Michael Earl Wilson v John Forster Emmott
3 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2415 (KB)
High Court
Mr. Wilson lost a case, then tried to get a second chance by claiming a mistake. The judge said no, that wasn't allowed, and he should appeal the original decision if he wasn't happy with it.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Wilson (Appellant) applied to vary or set aside an order dismissing his costs appeal (Judgment [2023] EWHC (QB) 813).
- •Mr. Wilson was represented by Leading Counsel at the initial appeal but appeared in person for the renewed application.
- •Mr. Wilson made a separate application to set aside the draft judgment under the Barrell jurisdiction before or after the order was sealed.
- •The application was not brought to the judge's attention until months later.
- •The judge initially dismissed the application on the papers, refusing an oral hearing.
- •Mr. Wilson subsequently requested and received an oral hearing.
- •Mr. Wilson submitted extensive documentation, including judgments from various jurisdictions, much of which was irrelevant to the application.
- •The judge refused the application to reopen the appeal.
Legal Principles
Barrell jurisdiction to set aside a judgment
In re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19
Lack of jurisdiction to reopen a final sealed order under Barrell jurisdiction after perfection
In the matter of L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 at [19], and White Book Vol 1, 2023, paras. 40.2.6 - 40.2.7
CPR 3.1(7) power to vary or revoke an order does not extend to reopening a final sealed order after an inter partes appeal.
CPR 3.1(7)
Principle of finality in litigation
None explicitly cited, but implied throughout the judgment
Second appeal jurisdiction under CPR 52.7 for errors in the original judgment
CPR 52.7
Overriding objective; Abuse of process
CPR (implied)
Outcomes
Mr. Wilson's application to vary or set aside the order dismissing his costs appeal was dismissed.
The court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the final sealed order under the Barrell jurisdiction. The application was an abuse of process and an attempt to re-argue an unsuccessful appeal. The appropriate route for Mr. Wilson's complaints was a second appeal.
The application for an oral hearing was refused
The application was considered abusive and without merit; granting it would be inconsistent with the overriding objective and would waste court time.