B2/2000/2031/A
B2/2000/2031
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 706
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Coltart)

	Royal Courts of Justice
	Strand
	London WC2

	Friday, 11th May 2001
B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE WALLER
LADY JUSTICE HALE and
LORD JUSTICE DYSON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ABBEY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Claimant (Respondent)

-v-

KOK THEAM YEAP
Defendant (Applicant/Appellant)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040  Fax: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr F Moraes (instructed by Messrs Balogun Kirvin, London WC2) appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant Defendant.

Mr J O'Brien and Miss J James-Stadden (instructed by Messrs Richard Reed & Co, Sunderland) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Claimant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE WALLER: There is an application on behalf of the appellant, Mr Yeap, to amend the grounds of appeal. The point which is raised relates essentially to grounds 3 and 4. 
2.	The background is that in an amended pleading in the court below an assertion was made that the term of the contract relied on by Abbey Life to terminate with immediate effect was unfair. There was a reference to the fact that this was a point that was being taken on Mr Yeap's behalf during the course of argument before the judge. But what appears to have happened is that a decision was taken to deal with what I can describe loosely as the “regulations issue”. Mr Hardy gave evidence for Abbey Life and it was to that aspect that that evidence was directed. The judge then delivered a judgment. At the end of the judgment he expressed views in relation to the conduct of Abbey Life in terminating a contract with immediate effect after Mr Yeap had worked for some eight years and nine months. He said that those remarks should be borne in mind between then and the next morning, when he expected the two sides to come back and tell him what else he had to decide. When the parties came back the next day certain figures had been agreed. There was then a debate about interest. But the judge was not asked to continue and decide the unfairness point. Of course, if he had been asked so to decide, evidence would have had to have been called. Abbey Life, in particular, would have had to have been given the opportunity to deal with the assertion that the term of the contract was oppressive and that they had acted in a morally reprehensible manner. However, none of that happened. In the result, the judge gave judgment for Abbey Life; and it is accepted by Mr Moraes on Mr Yeap's behalf that the effect of that order was to dismiss Mr Yeap's counterclaim. In those circumstances it certainly seems to me that any point on unfairness was abandoned.
3.	I would add that Mr Moraes accepts before us that on any view, even if he could get over the hurdle of whether this aspect of the case had been abandoned, he would have an uphill struggle in demonstrating that the point had any prospect of success in the Court of Appeal. I think that he is right to recognise the point as being a very difficult one indeed for Mr Yeap ever to have pursued. 
4.	In the circumstances I would hold that this point had been abandoned and that there should be no permission to amend the grounds of appeal in relation to that point.
5.	LADY JUSTICE HALE: I agree.
6.	LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I also agree.
Order: permission to amend grounds of appeal refused; permission to incorporate ground 2 granted.