SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 20 June 1901)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it provided, first, that no appeal without leave should lie from the decision of a divisional court of the High Court constituted of not less than three judges; second, that appeals from a judge of the King's 881 Bench on matters of practice and procedure, appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, appeals under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, and appeals from the Liverpool Court of Passage should lie to the High Court instead of to the Court of Appeal; and, thirdly, that the decision of the High Court should be final in the case of appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900. So far as he knew, the only objection taken to the Bill was in connection with the last mentioned provision; but he would point out that in the case of Scotland and Ireland it was already the law. On every ground there ought to be a uniform system, and it was only due to imperfect drafting of the Acts that the same prohibition of appeals did not apply to England He thought it was a little difficult to justify that position. The Bill also provided that the Court of Appeal should have power to sit in more than two divisions when the state of business so required. The Bill would aid and assist the administration of justice, and he commended it to their Lordships' favourable consideration.

§ *LORD ALVERSTONE

My Lords, this Bill has been very carefully considered by His Majesty's judges in the King's Bench Division, and I am anxious to dispel, if I can, some erroneous ideas that appear to prevail as to the real objects of the Bill. By an Act passed in 1894 appeals from judges sitting in chambers were transferred from the Queen's Bench Division to the Court of Appeal. Experience has shown that that was not a wise step. It has resulted in the Court of Appeal being occupied a great many hours and days in hearing matters on small points of practice; and it is the general opinion that it would be a great relief to the congested condition of that court if these appeals were retransferred to the King's Bench Division. There is another class of appeal—those from the county courts—which are becoming more numerous, and, to a certain extent, more important. An anomaly exists in the case of these appeals. When leave to appeal is given, though the case has previously been adjudicated upon by the County court 882 and the King's Bench Division, there is a right of appeal not only to the Court of Appeal, but to the House of Lords, so that in county court cases, which are not so important as High Court cases, there is an extra appeal. I have suggested—and I believe it is upon these lines that the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to consider the proposal—that in respect of matters which have been once heard by the county court judge, appeals from magistrates, or appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there should be an appeal to three judges of the King's Bench, and then, by leave only, an appeal to the House of Lords. Further, it is practically the unanimous decision of the judges of the King's Bench Division that there is not sufficient continuity in the personnel of the judges sitting in the divisional courts, to which fact we attribute the difficulty in making the judgments of those courts satisfactory. It is hoped to establish by this Bill a strong divisional court sitting, I will not say continuously, because that would be impossible, but for a considerable period, in which the judges should only be changed at intervals of six months, and then only one at a time. I believe that if that system were established there would be greater rapidity in the despatch of business and more uniformity in the decisions.