Case No. A2/2014/2473 
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 725
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY 
(RECORDER GARSIDE QC) 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 

Date: Tuesday, 9 June 2015
 
B e f o r e: 

LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL 
‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Between: 
G & J GREENALL GROUP LIMITED 
Appellant

v 

G4S SERVICE SOLUTIONS (UK) LIMITED 
Respondent 
‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
DAR Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

Mr I Daniels (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent was not present and was not represented
‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
J U D G M E N T
 
1.	LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL:  This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Mr Recorder Garside QC given in the Manchester County Court on 4 July 2014 following refusal on the papers by Longmore LJ.  I have read the papers carefully, including Mr Daniels' helpful advocate's statement.  At the start of the hearing I told him that I propose to give permission.  I have not, therefore, heard any oral submissions.  I do see the force of the points made by Longmore LJ in refusing permission, and they may in the end prevail.  But in my view it is arguable that the kinds of very general consideration on which the Recorder relied in reaching his decision were inadequate to discharge the burden of proof on the Claimants, particularly in circumstances where they had not carried out the kind of investigation which, at least on the Appellant's submissions (which is all I have to go on at this stage) might reasonably have been expected in a case of this kind.  
2.	I think that the way in which Mr Daniels puts it in his advocate's statement summarises what has persuaded me more than the more elaborate arguments in his skeleton argument, which are indeed perhaps vulnerable to the criticism that they are simply attempts to re‑argue what particular inferences cannot be drawn from particular pieces of evidence.  However, in order to get to that point it is still necessary to have a clear understanding of what the factual material before the Recorder amounted to, and I have accordingly resisted the temptation to do any editorial work on the grounds of appeal.  I would only say that Mr Daniels would be well advised to be intelligently selective when putting his case at the hearing on the particular factual matters there raised.  
3.	Again, although, as I have said, the point may ultimately be quite a general point about approach, because it is necessary to understand the factual background I am prepared to give the case what may be a generous estimate of one and a half days, to ensure that there is time for the factual material to be digested.  
4.	I will direct that the appeal be heard by a court of three, one of whom may be a High Court Judge.  It is not a case where any particular specialist expertise is necessary, but if the listing office requires a steer the most appropriate expertise for one or more members of the court would be general commercial.  
5.	The bundle for the appeal should include the parties' skeleton arguments below and any notes referred to in the course of oral submissions.  It is clear from the transcript of those submissions that there were some such notes, but I have not found it possible clearly to identify them.