‘No exceptional circumstances’ to reopen solicitor’s ‘bound to fail’ appeal, Court of Appeal finds

The Court of Appeal has found ‘no exceptional circumstances’ to reopen an appeal ‘which is and always was bound to fail’ in an epic dispute between two solicitors described as 'pathological litigation'.

In Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v JF Emmott & Ors Lady Justice Andrews dismissed the application by Michael Wilson & Partners to reopen the appeal in an aspect of the long-running litigation coverning a struck-out claim form.

The case is the latest twist in a 24-year dispute between Wilson and dual-qualified solicitor John Emmott, former business associates, over an agreement for a quasi-partnership. The labyrinthine saga has included litigation in jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and the Bahamas, as well as the English courts.

The judge said she did not accept that the previous judge’s ‘failure to read the [appellant] skeleton critically undermined the integrity of the process for granting permission to appeal’.

She added: ‘Once the points in the skeleton are tested against the evidence, it is obvious that the appeal is and always was completely lacking in merit.

‘Although the…skeleton refines the grounds of appeal and puts them more cogently and elegantly, a skeleton argument is not the proper vehicle for amending the grounds of appeal or introducing new ones.’

Dismissing the appeal, with which Lord Justice Baker agreed, the judge said the application was ‘totally without merit’ and the firm had an ‘effective alternative remedy’ if it had ‘any reasonable arguable claims’ against the respondents. 

She said: ‘There are no exceptional circumstances here, and it cannot be necessary in the interests of justice to allow MWP to re-open this appeal against the judge’s order, which is and always was bound to fail.

‘But even if the appeal had otherwise had merit, it is clear that if MWP have any reasonably arguable claims against the respondents that were not already substantively disposed of by the 532 proceedings, they do not need to re-open it in order to bring them. They therefore have an effective alternative remedy.

‘I would therefore dismiss this application, which, in the light of everything I have explained, is totally without merit.’