©Crown Copyright

1. The third application, 2001/1441, is a joint application by the first defendant, Highnorth, and the third defendant, Boxer. It may be noted that correspondence with the Civil Appeals Office on behalf of Boxer has been conducted by Mr Todd, who has also acted for Containerised Storage Company and himself. The appellant's notice is signed by Dr Akena Adoko, who, as I have mentioned, is described as a legal officer of the applicants. Indeed, on one page of the application he signs himself as "the appellants' solicitor". The only part of the order against which those two appellants seek to appeal is the order as to costs.

2. Dr Adoko was given permission to represent Highnorth Limited, but not Boxer Commercial Removals Plc, by Brooke LJ on 23 November 2001; but on condition that he provided a written statement to the court at the hearing of the application which complied with paragraph 5.2 of the Practice Direction in CPR 39. No such written statement has been provided, and no authority for him to represent Boxer Commercial Removals Plc has been provided.

3. The court has been sent a doctor's certificate signed by Dr Turner of the Aylesbury Health Centre, London, SE17. It records that Akena Adoko should refrain from work for one month on account of stress. In the circumstances that Dr Adoko is not a person who, on the material before the court, could represent either Highnorth or Boxer - and in the circumstances that no reason has been shown why someone else could not represent those companies if Dr Adoko is not available due to stress - I have to consider whether to proceed to deal with that application. I m satisfied that I should do so.

4. The real position is that these three applications seek to challenge the judge's exercise of discretion in relation to costs. The judge was faced with the position in which, as he found, the proceedings had been properly commenced against all four defendants, who were appearing by the same counsel and for whom the same solicitors were on the record. There is nothing in the material in the judgment - or, so far as appears from the papers before me, anything in the material that was put before the judge on 1 May 2001 - to suggest that these four defendants were not making common cause in defence of this litigation. In those circumstances the obvious order for the judge to make as to costs was the order he made. I can see no basis upon which this Court would be persuaded to interfere with his discretion.

5. The problems that have arisen - if there are problems - stem from Mr Todd's wish to correspond with Paisners behind the backs of the solicitors, Ivor Levy, who were purporting to act for all, or for at least three, of the defendants. In those circumstances, he says on his own behalf and on behalf of Containerised Storage Company and Boxer Commercial Removals Plc, that the proceedings had been settled and that there was no need for a hearing against those defendants on 1 May 2001.

6. However, for the reasons that the judge set out, it seems to me plain that, viewed from the position of Mayflower Estates Limited and its solicitors, there had been no settlement. If Mr Todd, or his companies, have a claim against the solicitors who were purporting to act for them, nothing in this judgment prevents them from proceeding with that claim. I am concerned only with the position as between the defendants and the claimant.

7. In my view, no basis has been shown upon which it could be said that there was any real prospect that appeals to this Court could succeed. In those circumstances, the applications for permission to appeal are dismissed.