 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Nevertheless, important differences have been introduced. As Brooke LJ pointed out
in Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald (Practice Note) [2000] 1 WLR 1311 at 1317,
§§30-31, CPR 52.11(3) means that :-
"The appeal court will only allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was wrong,
or where it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings
in the lower court ......"
As his Lordship commented, the application of this approach to all appeals, including
appeals from masters' decisions, marks a significant change :-
"This marks a significant change in practice, in relation to what used to be called
‘interlocutory appeals' from district judges or masters. Under the old practice, the appeal to a
judge was a rehearing in the fullest sense of the word, and the judge exercised his/her
discretion afresh, while giving appropriate weight to the way the lower court had exercised its
discretion in the matter. Under the new practice, the decision of the lower court will attract
much greater significance. The appeal court's duty is now limited to a review of that decision,
and it may only interfere in the quite limited circumstances set out in CPR 52.11(3)."
|
 |
|