 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
23.5
The consultation response
With a few exceptions,
the reaction to these two proposals was negative. Most
respondents were not persuaded that any change was warranted and preferred to allow
the Court of Appeal full re-hearing powers.
There was a fear, expressed by the
DOJ, that limiting the Court of Appeal to powers of review might prevent it from
doing justice in some cases. Most appeal court judges were against a change.
In the light of the consultation response and of the recommendations made by the
Working Party concerning hearings before and appeals from the masters and the
introduction of a requirement for leave to appeal from the judge to the Court of Appeal
should not be adopted.
Recommendation 121: Proposal 49
(for having appeals by way of review in
place of appeals by way of re-hearing) and Proposal 50 (for applying the same
approach to all appeals) should not be adopted.
Notes
The APAA and a firm of solicitors.
Including the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the DOJ, most Justices of Appeal and a set of barristers'
chambers. The Law Society did not expressly address the question. The BCC opposed the proposals
but on the (unexplained) ground that it "could lead to the flood-gates on appeals being opened."
|
 |
|