In Junos v Commission of Inquiry [2025] CA (Bda) 2 Civ, the Court of Appeal considered Order 2 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Corut of Appeal, that the court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered save in accordance with the practice of the Court of Appeal in England. The Court found that the relevant procedures and practices for the time being in force in the Court of Appeal in England are those contained in Order 52, Rule 30 and the practice note which relates to it.
The Court also applied CPR 50-53 and the English Court of Appeal case of Municipio de Marian v BHP Group PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1156, which held as follows:
“60 The Court of Appeal (Sir Keith Lindblom SPT, Coulson and Andrews LJJ) revisited CPR 52.30 in R (Wingfield) v. Canterbury City Council [2020] EWCA Civ, [2021] 1 WLR 2863 (“Wingfield”), on the basis that “the clear message of [Goring] has still not been understood”. At [61], five principles were extracted from the authorities as follows:
“(1) A final determination of an appeal, including a refusal of permission to appeal, will not be reopened unless the circumstances are exceptional (Taylor v Lawrence). (2) There must be a powerful probability that a significant injustice has already occurred, and that reconsideration is the only effective remedy (Taylor v Lawrence,.. Re Uddin). (3) The paradigm case is fraud or bias or where the judge read the wrong papers (Barclays Bank v Guy, Lawal). (4) Matters such as the fact that a wrong result was reached earlier, or that there is fresh evidence, or that the amounts in issue are very large or the point in issue is important, are not of themselves sufficient to displace the fundamental public importance of the need for finality (Lawal). (5) There must be a powerful probability that the decision in question would have been different if the integrity of the earlier proceedings had not been critically undermined (Goring…).”
The Court of Appeal did not find the facts of the case exceptional as to make it appropriate to reopen the appeals or that it is necessary to do so in order to avoid real injustice and refused the application to review a previous judgment int he proceedings.
Ryan Hawthorne represented the Commission of Inquiry.
