UK case law
Abiola v Daniel & Ors
[2005] EWCA CIV 1733 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division) · 2005
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: What I am doing in this case is standing it over to a date on which it should be heard inter partes. That date should be convenient to counsel on both sides. I will then decide whether or not to reinstate the applications for permission to appeal which are the subject of the inter partes hearing. 2. Inevitably I will need to hear from both sides submissions about the likely prospect of success on the appeal, because I think that is a factor which may come into the decision whether or not to reinstate. There is no point in reinstating an application for permission if it does not have a real prospect of succeeding. It is all mixed up together. It is not appropriate for me to hear the matter today when only the applicant is represented, and I have skeleton arguments from the respondent, which the applicant's counsel has not had time to consider and on which he and I may have points on which we require assistance from the respondent's counsel. 3. In those circumstances I am standing it over: 1 hour. I will direct that, if it is possible, it should be reserved to be heard by me because I have already read the papers and I have some grasp of the points that require decision. ---