Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Three Paths of Justice pp 107–120Cite as

Appeals and Finality

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 1602 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 10))

Abstract

This compact chapter examines two crucial points: (1) appeals of first and subsequent decisions; and (2) the res judicata effect of final judgments for subsequent litigation.

Neil Andrews, English Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press, 2003), Chap. 38; Sir Henry Brooke, D. di Mambro, and L. di Mambro, eds., Manual of Civil Appeals (2nd edn, London: Lexis Nexis, 2004); J. Leabeater, and others, Civil Appeals: Principle and Procedure (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010); CPR Part 52 was examined in Tanfern Ltd v. Cameron-MacDonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311, 1314–21, CA; on the system requiring ‘permission’ in nearly all cases, I.R. Scott (1999) 18 Civil Justice Quarterly 91; for background, Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (report to Lord Chancellor, September 1997; the ‘Bowman Report’); for US comparison, P.S. Atiyah and R. Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford University Press, 1987), Chap. 10; for reflections on the private and public functions of civil appeals, especially in the highest chamber, reports by J.A. Jolowicz, P.-H. Lindblom, and S. Goldstein in The Role of the Supreme Courts at the National and International Level, ed. P. Yessiou-Faltsi (Thessaloniki, Greece, 1998); for comparative perspectives on appeals, J.A. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2000), Chap.’s 14 to 16.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CPR 52.3(1): except decisions affecting a person’s liberty.

  2. 2.

    CPR 52.4(2); appeals out of time will only exceptionally be permitted: Smith v. Brough [2005] EWCA 261; [2006] CP Rep 17.

  3. 3.

    CPR 52.6(1) (2).

  4. 4.

    There are special rules allowing some appeals to ‘hop’ a level of appeal and be fast-routed to the Court of Appeal, or even to the UK Supreme Court.

  5. 5.

    PD (52).

  6. 6.

    CPR 52.13; Sir Henry Brooke, di Mambro, and di Mambro, eds., Manual of Civil Appeals (2nd edn, London, 2004), 4.88 ff.

  7. 7.

    [2010] EWHC 61 (QB); [2010] 2 All ER 649; [2010] PNLR 18.

  8. 8.

    s 12, Administration of Justice Act 1969.

  9. 9.

    L. Blom-Cooper, B. Dickson, and G. Drewry, eds., The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); A. Le Sueur, ed., Building the UK’s New Supreme Court: National and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); K. Malleson, in Reinventing Britain: Constitutional Change under New Labour, ed. A. McDonald (3rd edn, London: Tottel, 2007), Chap. 6; D. Morgan, ed., Constitutional Innovation: The Creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom (London, 2004) (Special Issue of Legal Studies); D. Oliver, Constitutional Reform in the UK (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), Chap. 18; A. Paterson, The Law Lords (London, 1982); Robert Stevens, The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution (Oxford: Hart, 2002), Chap.’s 9, 10; Robert Stevens, Law and Politics: the House of Lords as Judicial Body 1800–1976 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979); T. Bingham, ‘The Old Order Changeth,’ Law Quarterly Review 122 (2006): 211; T. Bingham, ‘The Evolving Constitution,’ EHRLR (2002): 1; B. Hale, ‘A Supreme Judicial Leader’, in Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum, eds. M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 209; B. Hale, ‘A New Supreme Court for the United Kingdom,’ LS 24 (2004): 36; R. Cooke, ‘The Law Lords: An Endangered Species,’ Law Quarterly Review 119 (2003): 49; J. Steyn, ‘The Case for a Supreme Court,’ Law Quarterly Review 118 (2002): 382; D. Neuberger, ‘The Supreme Court: Is the House of Lords “Losing Part of Itself”’ (2 December 2009; available on line: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/index.htm); Shimon Shetreet, ‘The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law….,’ Chicago Journal of International Law 10 (2009): 275–332.

  10. 10.

    s 25(1), Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

  11. 11.

    Hale, ‘A New Supreme Court for the United Kingdom,’ 36, 41.

  12. 12.

    http://ukscblog.com/supreme-court-appointments-sumption-and-wilson-officially-confirmed.

  13. 13.

    D. Neuberger and D. Neuberger, ‘The Supreme Court: Is the House of Lords “Losing Part of Itself”’ (2 December 2009; available on line: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/index.htm), at [19].

  14. 14.

    L. Blom-Cooper, ‘1966 and All That: The Story of the Practice Statement’, in L. Blom-Cooper, B. Dickson, and G. Drewry, eds., op. cit., at128; ibid., 239, 271–2.

  15. 15.

    L. Blom-Cooper, ibid., at 143–4; ibid. at 271–2; B. Harris, ‘Final Appellate Courts Overruling Their Own “Wrong” Precedents: The Ongoing Search for Principle,’ Law Quarterly Review 118 (2002): 408; J.W. Harris, ‘Towards Principles of Overruling…,’ OJLS 10 (1990): 135.

  16. 16.

    Jackson v. Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262, HL, at [9], per Lord Bingham: the bedrock of the British constitution is…the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament [which can]… . make or unmake any law it wished.

  17. 17.

    s 4, Human Rights Act 1998; on which D. Feldman, ‘Human Rights’ in L. Blom-Cooper, B. Dickson, and G. Drewry, eds., op. cit., at 558–9.

  18. 18.

    [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 AC 68, HL.

  19. 19.

    B. Dickson, ‘The Processing of Appeals in the House of Lords,’ Law Quarterly Review 123 (2007): 570, especially at 570–88.

  20. 20.

    Callery v. Gray (Nos 1 and 2) [2002] UKHL 28; [2002] 1 WLR 2000, at [8], per Lord Bingham, referring to the conditional fee context: ‘…responsibility for monitoring and controlling the developing practice in a field such as this lies with the Court of Appeal and not the House, which should ordinarily be slow to intervene. The House cannot respond to changes in practice with the speed and sensitivity of the Court of Appeal, before which a number of cases are likely over time to come…’; and, ibid., at [17], per Lord Hoffmann: ‘The Court of Appeal is traditionally and rightly responsible for supervising the administration of civil procedure. This is an area in which your Lordships have in the past seldom intervened and, it must be said, the few exceptions to this policy of self-restraint have usually tended to confirm the wisdom of the general practice.’ Campbell v. MGN (No 2) [2005] UKHL 61; [2005] 1WLR 3394; more generally, see the observations of Lord Woolf in Boake Allen Ltd v. Revenue and Customs [2007] UKHL 25 at [28] concerning the House of Lords’ ‘deference’ to the Court of Appeal on questions of ‘practice and procedure’ (‘…because the members of the [Court of Appeal] have had more recent experience of those issues than members of this House’); for discussion of the ‘leap-frog’ mechanism, enabling appeals to proceed straight to the House of Lords without a hearing before the Court of Appeal (under ss 12, 13, Administration of Justice Act 1969), R (on the application of Jones) v. Ceredigion County Council [2007] UKHL 24; [2007] 3 All ER 781.

  21. 21.

    Blom-Cooper, Dickson, and Drewry, eds., The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, 52 ff; 235; and on occasional ‘leap-frogging’ from High Court to House of Lords, 57 ff.

  22. 22.

    The Supreme Court Rules 2009 (SI 2009/1603), rule 10.

  23. 23.

    James Vallance White, ‘in the opinion of the Committee the petition did not disclose a point of law which merited an appeal to the House’, in L. Blom-Cooper, B. Dickson, and G. Drewry, eds., op. cit., at 44.

  24. 24.

    D. Feldman, ‘Human Rights,’ in The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, eds. L. Blom-Cooper, B. Dickson, and G. Drewry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 546.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., 53

  26. 26.

    1952–68, tax accounted for more than 30 per cent of the House’s appeals: L. Blom-Cooper and G. Drewry, op. cit., at Table 11; cited ibid. at 52; but in 2001–7, this work had fallen to 7 per cent, ibid. (2009), 53.

  27. 27.

    CPR 52.11(3).

  28. 28.

    Bowman v. Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226; [2005] 1 WLR 3083, at [7], where Brooke LJ said of the present appeal: ‘The issue at the heart of the appeal is, however, an issue of public law of very great importance which is causing very great difficulties in solicitors’ offices and barristers’ chambers and in the orderly conduct of contested litigation through the country.’ And Brooke LJ, ibid., noted the following leading decisions: Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v. Jervis [1944] AC 111, 113–4, HL per Viscount Simon LC and Ainsbury v. Millington (Note) [1987] 1 WLR 379, 381, HL, per Lord Bridge of Harwich; R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Salem [1999] 1 AC 450, 456 G-H, HL, per Lord Slynn of Hadley.

  29. 29.

    Black v. Pastouna [2005] EWCA Civ 1389; [2006] CP Rep 11, per Brooke LJ.

  30. 30.

    CPR 52.11(2).

  31. 31.

    Passages just cited are re-stated in Riyad Bank v. Ahli United Bank (UK) plc [2005] EWCA Civ 1419 at [26] ff (noting that these ‘Ladd v. Marshall’ (1954) pre-CPR principles were re-adopted in Hamilton v. Al Fayed The Times 13 October, 2000, CA); CPR 52.11(2). In the Riyad case, ibid., at [28] it was added that ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is intended is to put in, in effect, further cross-examination of a witness, including an expert, where that expert or witness has been cross-examined at a trial.’ On fresh evidence, a fundamental overview is Noble v. Owens [2010] EWCA Civ 224; [2010] 1 WLR 2491; Leabeater, and others, Civil Appeals: Principle and Procedure, 6-024–6-027.

  32. 32.

    CPR 52.11(4).

  33. 33.

    Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd v. United Parcels Services Ltd [2007] UKHL 23; [2007] 1 WLR 1325, at [46], Lord Mance, quoting Clarke LJ in Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. Arab Insurance Group [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 140; [2003] 1 WLR 577, CA (in the Datec case itself, the trial judge’s findings of fact were reversed by the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords held that the Court of Appeal’s decision was justified.

  34. 34.

    Assicurazioni Generali, ibid., at [15], per Clarke LJ.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., at [14], per Clarke LJ.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., at [16], per Clarke LJ; for further observations on exercises of discretion at first instance and decisions requiring the ‘balancing’ of nebulous factors, Browne v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295; [2008] QB 103 at [45], citing five recent authorities; the question whether a set of facts amounts to frustration can sometimes involve a matter of fact within this last sense; and the court’s exercise of certain discretionary tests can involve determinations within this special category.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., at [17], per Clarke LJ, citing Mance LJ in Todd v. Adam (trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) [2002] EWCA Civ 509; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 293; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, at [129].

  38. 38.

    [2009] UKHL 18; [2009] 1 WLR 776, at [27].

  39. 39.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1051; [2011] ETLR 10.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., at [87].

  41. 41.

    [2002] EWCA Civ 90; [2003] QB 528, CA; on which see I.R. Scott (2000) 21 Civil Justice Quarterly 194 and Sir Henry Brooke, di Mambro, and di Mambro, eds., Manual of Civil Appeals, 4.118 ff; this decision has been examined in various cases, notably, In re Uddin [2005] EWCA Civ 52; [2005] 1 WLR 2398, CA; Jaffray v. The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586; First Discount Ltd v. Guinness [2007] EWCA Civ 378; R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, HL.

  42. 42.

    CPR 52.17.

  43. 43.

    Barclays Bank plc v. Guy (No 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 1396; [2011] 1 WLR 681, at [39], per Lord Neuberger MR.

  44. 44.

    The leading work is Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley, The Doctrine of Res Judicata (4th edn, London: Lexis Nexis, 2009).

  45. 45.

    This terminology, current in the USA and in Canada, has been adopted in American Law Institute/UNIDROIT’s Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) Principles 28.2, 28.3.

  46. 46.

    ‘Cause of action’ denotes the set of material facts supporting a recognised legal ground of claim Cooke v. Gill (1873) LR 8 CP 107; Brunsden v. Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141, CA; Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, 243, CA; Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd [1993] AC 410, 419, HL; Walkin v. South Manchester Health Authority [1995] 1 WLR 1543, 1547, CA; Brown v. KMR Services Ltd [1995] 4 All ER 598, 640, CA; Paragon Finance v. DB Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400, 405–6, CA.

  47. 47.

    Arnold v. National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, HL; noted Neil Andrews [1991] Cambridge Law Journal 419; for an example of different causes of action, Buehler AG v. Chronos Richardson Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 960, CA.

  48. 48.

    Arnold case [1991] 2 AC 93, 104, HL.

  49. 49.

    [2011] UKCS 1; [2011] 2 WLR 103, at [48] to [51].

  50. 50.

    Ibid., at [34], citing Spencer Bower and Handley, The Doctrine of Res Judicata, 1-04.

  51. 51.

    Including a final decision of an interim application: R v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Osman [1991] 1 WLR 281; Possfund v. Diamond [1996] 2 All ER 774, 779, citing Chanel Ltd v. F W Woolworth & Co Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 485, 492–3, CA; for an example of a non-final decision, Buehler AG v. Chronos Richardson Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 960, CA.

  52. 52.

    For example, Palmer v. Durnford Ford [1992] 1 QB 483; Green v. Vickers Defence Systems Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 904; The Times 1 July 2002, CA; Gairy v. Att-Gen of Grenada [2001] UKPC 30; [2002] 1 AC 167, PC, at [27], per Lord Bingham: ‘a consent order may found a plea of res judicata even though the court has not been asked to investigate and pronounce on the point at issue.’

  53. 53.

    P.R. Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel and Foreign Judgments The Preclusive Effects of Foreign Judgments in Private International Law (Oxford University Press, 2001); P. Rogerson, ‘Issue Estoppel and Abuse of Process in Foreign Judgments,’ Civil Justice Quarterly (1998): 91 (reviewing this and other case law).

  54. 54.

    Green v. Hampshire County Council [1979] ICR 861; Crown Estate Commrs v. Dorset County Council [1990] Ch 297.

  55. 55.

    R (Coke-Wallis) v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2011] UKCS 1; [2011] 2 WLR 103, at [27] to [31].

  56. 56.

    As Lord Collins of Mapesbury said in R (Coke-Wallis) v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2011] UKCS 1; [2011] 2 WLR 103, at [57]: ‘from the earliest times it has been recognised that the principle of finality or res judicata applies to tribunals established by the parties, such as an arbitral tribunal: Dunn v. Murray (1829) 9 B & C 780; Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v. V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630, 643, CA, per Diplock LJ; the proposition that arbitration gives rise to both cause of action and issue estoppels was also supported by Lord Clarke in the Coke-Wallis case, at [36]; see also Ron Jones (Burton-on-Trent) Ltd v. JS Hall (unreported, 3 August 1999)’.

  57. 57.

    McIlkenny v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1980] 1 QB 283, CA; House of Spring Gardens Ltd v. Waite [1991] 1 QB 241, CA; Black v. Yates [1992] 1 QB 526, 545–9.

  58. 58.

    For exmaple, Green v. Vickers Defence Systems Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 904; The Times 1 July 2002 (consent order between victim of asbestosis and employer; held that terms of settlement included admission of liability for causation; victim’s estate and dependants able to take advantage of this admission in the consent order).

  59. 59.

    Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853, HL; Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 3) [1970] Ch 506; The Sennar (No 2) [1985] 1 WLR 490, 499, HL; see Dicey, Morris, and Collins, The Conflict of Laws (14th edn, London, 2006), 14–110 ff; Rogerson, ‘Issue Estoppel and Abuse of Process in Foreign Judgments,’ 91.

  60. 60.

    Arnold v. National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, 105, HL; Thoday v. Thoday [1964] P 181, 198, CA; The Sennar (No 2) [1985] 1 WLR 490, 499, HL; Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Grace’) [1993] AC 410, 419, HL.

  61. 61.

    In R (Coke-Wallis) v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2011] UKCS 1; [2011] 2 WLR 103, Lord Clarke said: ‘the parties having chosen an arbitration tribunal to determine the issues, they are bound by an interim arbitration award on specific issues under the principle of issue estoppel… . It is implicit in Diplock LJ’s judgment that in such a case…cause of action estoppel would apply.’ This refers to Diplock LJ’s statement in Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v. V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630, 643 C, CA, per Diplock LJ.

  62. 62.

    Arnold case, [1991] 2 AC 93, 112, HL (and see Arnold case [1990] Ch 573, 598, 600, CA; not disturbed on final appeal); S v. S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order) [2002] EWHC 223 (Fam); [2003] Fam 1, at [30] ff.

  63. 63.

    Phosphate Sewage Co v. Molleson (1879) 4 App Cas 801, 814, HL; the Phosphate case test applies to the abuse of process doctrine: Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529, 545, HL and Smith v. Linskills [1996] 1 WLR 763, 771, CA.

  64. 64.

    (1843) 3 Hare 100, 115, Wigram V-C: In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

  65. 65.

    Taylor v. Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90; [2003] QB 528, at [6], per Lord Woolf; it has been (attractively) held that this rule is aimed only at countering re-litigation of points which might have been raised in earlier proceedings, and that the rule should not be stretched to control amendment of pleadings in the original action (on the basis that the point should have been raised sooner): Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd v. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2007] EWHC 1773 (TCC), at [30], per Jackson J.

  66. 66.

    Johnson case [2000] UKHL 65; [2002] 2 AC 1, 32–3, 59, HL.

  67. 67.

    [2002] 2 AC 1, 22, 59, HL; Gairy v. Att-Gen of Grenada [2001] UKPC 30; [2002] 1 AC 167, PC, at [26], [27].

  68. 68.

    Johnson case, [2002] 2 AC 1, 59–60, HL.

  69. 69.

    As suggested in the Johnson case, ibid., at 60; and see Bradford & Bingley Building Society v. Seddon [1999] 1 WLR 1482, 1491–2, CA.

  70. 70.

    Brunsden v. Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141, 147, CA; LA Collins (1992) 108 Law Quarterly Review 393, 394 (case note); Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Grace’) [1993] AC 410, 420–1, HL; Rowner v. Allen & Sons (1936) 41 Com Cas 90; Jaggard v. Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269, 284, CA; Deeny v. Gooda Walker Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1206, 1214 (offering postponement of assessment of damages); but on the need for caution in applying this rule, Barrow v. Bankside Agency Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 257, 269, CA; Cachia v. Faluyi [2001] 1 WLR 1966, CA, at [18] to [20].

  71. 71.

    The leading case is Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529, HL (affirming CA sub nom McIlkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force [1980] QB 283); for a luminous re-statement, Smith v. Linskills [1996] 1 WLR 763, CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR); the Hunter case was applied in Somasunaram v. M Julius Melchior & Co [1988] 1 WLR 1394, CA, noted J.A. Jolowicz [1989] Cambridge Law Journal 196; the Hunter decision was distinguished in Acton v. Graham Pearce & Co [1997] 3 All ER 904, 925 (earlier criminal conviction later set aside by CA, Criminal Division); the Hunter case was also distinguished in Walpole v. Partridge & Wilson [1994] QB 106, CA (collateral attack doctrine inapplicable where possible appeal from criminal conviction not pursued, as a result of a lawyer’s negligence); nor does the Hunter rule against collateral challenge apply when a civil defendant seeks to contradict his criminal conviction, J v. Oyston [1999] 1 WLR 694 (considering Civil Evidence Act 1968, s 11(2)(a)); nor does it apply where proceedings for disqualification of a company director follow a regulatory investigation: Re Barings (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 311, 335–6, 340, CA; generally on abuse of process, Andrews, English Civil Procedure, Chap. 16; civil actions against persons acquitted in criminal trials, involving the same facts, have been tolerated, although here too the ‘abuse of process’ control can apply; no abuse found on facts in Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25; [2008] 3 All ER 573 (per Lords Bingham, Scott, Rodger; dissenting on this point were Lords Carswell and Neuberger); Raja v. van Hoogstraten [2005] EWHC 2890 (Ch).

  72. 72.

    Conlon v. Simms [2006] EWCA Civ 1749; [2007] 3 All ER 802 (containing a long review of authorities).

  73. 73.

    Arthur JS Hall & Co v. Simons [2000] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 AC 615, 685, HL.

  74. 74.

    Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s 34; Black v. Yates [1992] 1 QB 526; on the necessity for this provision, Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Endurance No 1’) [1993] AC 410, 417, HL; for the sequel, Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Endurance No 2’) [1998] AC 878, HL.

  75. 75.

    The Indian Endurance No 2 [1998] AC 878, HL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clare College, Trinity Lane, CB2 1TL, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Andrews .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Andrews, N. (2012). Appeals and Finality. In: The Three Paths of Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2294-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation