James Wolffe KC, pictured, formerly Scotland’s senior law officer as Lord Advocate, criticised the Greffe for failing to inform lawyers at Appleby about two judgments made in the ongoing dispute between a group of public servants and the States over their pension rights.
Mr Wolffe said it was not clear to him why the judgments had not been passed on.
‘A disappointed litigant has a right to appeal or, in the case of an interlocutory judgment, to seek leave to appeal,’ he said in his judgment allowing the public servants leave to appeal in their latest court bid.
‘The date of hand down of a judgment is critical in initiating the 28-day period during which any notice of appeal must be served.
‘It is of the utmost importance that the Greffier’s office immediately intimate any judgment to the parties’ lawyers, particularly to the lawyer for the disappointed party, so that they have the full period allowed by the statute to consider their position in relation to any appeal.
‘As the circumstances of this case show, failure to intimate the Royal Court’s leave judgment timeously may deprive the applicant of the opportunity to make an application for an extension of time before the deadline has passed – which will generally be easier to justify than any application which requires to be made after the deadline has passed.'
Mr Wolffe also called on local lawyers to ‘be alive’ to the statutory time limit for service of a notice of appeal and, in cases where leave requires to be obtained, to the practical implications of that statutory time limit.
‘This time limit is a deadline, not a target. When faced with an application for an extension of time after the deadline has passed, the court will always expect an explanation of the reasons why the deadline was missed and for any period of delay thereafter.’
He said that had it not been for the court’s error in advising of the judgment, he would have refused the application for an extension of time to appeal.