No A3/2000/3595

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 809
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL 
AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME
								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

								Tuesday, 15th May 2001
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE WALLER

- - - - - -

NOEL
Applicant
- v -

ROWLAND
Respondent

- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

The Applicant appeared in person

The Respondent did was not represented and did not attend

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE WALLER: This is an application by Mrs Sally Noel for permission to appeal a judgment of Mr Justice Tomlinson made on 17th November 2000. Mrs Noel is one of those who has suffered enormously in the problems of Lloyd's in recent years, as have many. These courts are deeply aware of those sufferings. Mrs Noel herself has litigation against her agents, John Poland. She is also involved in litigation in which Lloyd's are suing her. That litigation came to the Court of Appeal in March 2001.
2.	This case is concerned with an action that Mrs Noel seeks to bring against Sir David Rowland. Sir David Rowland was a member of the Council of Lloyd's for some time. He was also Chairman of Lloyd's and in particular during the period of reconstruction. The question that I have to address at this moment in time is as to whether Mrs Noel has any reasonable prospect of succeeding in reversing Mr Justice Tomlinson's judgment at first instance. One point that has been taken is that Mrs Noel - if she had known more about the findings and investigation of what was called the Kerr Panel - would not have accepted Mr Justice Tomlinson as the judge to hear her application. What happened was that he disclosed he had been a member of that panel and she confirmed that she had no objection to him hearing the case. The Kerr Panel was something referred to on many occasions during the litigation between the names and Lloyd's. As it seems to me, there is no prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal - she having consented to Mr Justice Tomlinson hearing the case - to reverse his decision and send it back to be heard by a different judge.
3.	I now turn to the claims she seeks to make against Sir David Rowland. As the judge point out, she has three main themes. The first is that she has a very real sense of grievance about the circumstances in which she, like many others, was recruited to Lloyd's when she first became a member. As the judge also pointed out, that cannot give rise to any personal responsibility of Sir David Rowland. The second strand is her complaint that in the course of 1986 Lloyd's introduced a new form of standard agency agreement. That is not something for which, in any way, she can hold Sir David Rowland responsible. That brings one to the third area which is the area she has addressed, in essence, to me and that is that she remains deeply critical of the reconstruction and renewal exercise which took place in 1996.
4.	When one examines her complaints in relation to that her difficulty is she cannot demonstrate any contract between herself and Sir David Rowland personally. She cannot demonstrate that Sir David Rowland was acting other than in the capacity of Chairman of Lloyd's. She cannot demonstrate that Sir David Rowland ever made some representation directly to her which led her to act in a way which caused her loss and in relation to which she can say Sir David Rowland acted dishonestly. As one reads through her points of claim one sees that, as was made clear when she was addressing me, she constantly - and I do not criticise her for this - goes into the background of the matters that happened over the period, but at the end of the day she cannot pinpoint any cause of action against Sir David Rowland personally.
5.	She has said to me that she is not concerned about costs. But it really would do her no favours at all to give her permission to appeal a case in which she is bound to lose in this court. It will simply saddle her with a further bill of costs, those being the costs of the representatives that would come and argue the case on behalf of Sir David Rowland. Of course it may not help to say that one has tremendous sympathy for the position in which persons like Mrs Noel find themsevles but one does have sympathy. That however does not lead one to allow her to bring a case in which she has no prospect of succeeding. Thus, I must refuse permission to appeal.
Order: Application refused