Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterPrint this page

The Supreme Court issued a judgment last week stating there was no need to recall a previous judgment which failed to address an extension of time to pay security for costs for an appeal to the Court of Appeal because the appellant could simply pay security out of time to advance the appeal due to the order not having been made on an “unless” basis.

The application seeking appeal of the security order was made to the Supreme Court a year earlier.

The 3 judges were apparently oblivious to Rule 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 which renders an appeal abandoned if steps are not taken within three months of filing. Failure to pay security prevents steps in appeals being taken. The rule states no extension can be sought three months after the initial three month period. The rule overrides other rules.

The recorded judgment claimed to determine an “email” application, further perplexing court watchers. Perplexing in this case, because the Supreme Court has come under fire recently for issuing third party email rulings which are not public in response to formally filed applications.