The Parties were engaged in longstanding litigation. In that context, the Respondent was awarded full indemnity Costs against the Appellants, which Costs were fixed by an Assessment Officer. Pursuant to Rule 10.44, the Appellants appealed the Assessment Officer’s Decision (the “Assessment Appeal”).

That Assessment Appeal did not proceed for a period of time, after which the Respondent filed a Writ of Enforcement and garnished funds from the Appellants’ bank account. The Appellants objected to the proposed distribution of the garnished funds and brought an Application seeking, amongst other relief, a Special Chambers hearing date for the Assessment Appeal. The Chambers Judge decided that the Appellants required leave from the Court of King’s Bench to extend the time for the Assessment Appeal. The Appellants then sought permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal that Decision. Leave was granted with respect to one ground of Appeal: whether it was an error to require the Appellants to seek leave to extent the time for the Costs Appeal.

In its analysis, the Court held that the Assessment Appeal was outstanding; there was no need to restore it as the Chambers Judge had held, and there was no indication that the Appellants had filed the Assessment Appeal out of time such that an extension to that deadline was required. While the Chambers Judge was critical of the Appellants’ delay, it was an error to require the Appellants to seek any form of permission with respect to the Assessment Appeal, which remained extant.

In the result, the Court allowed this Appeal and directed the Appellants to seek a Case Conference in respect of the Assessment Appeal pursuant to Rule 4.10. The Court took carriage of preparing the Judgment at hand and invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) to dispense with the need for the parties’ approval thereof.