Enhanced Judicial Management of Appeals by Case Stated: A Precedent for Procedural Precision and Expedited Justice

Introduction

The judgment in Cavan v Bunting ([2025] NICA 12) presents a seminal decision in the administration of appeals by case stated in Northern Ireland. In this appeal from the Belfast County Court, the dispute between plaintiff Matthew Cavan and defendant Jolene Bunting centres on the issuance and enforcement of injunctions, alleged procedural irregularities, and the correct formulation of legal issues.

At the heart of the case lies a challenge to both the procedural management and the substantive formulation of the case stated submitted for appellate review. The plaintiff, having sought injunctive relief to restrain certain harassing conduct by the defendant, encountered prolonged delays and numerous procedural missteps. The Court of Appeal was called upon to evaluate not only the underlying legal questions — such as the application of tests of "oppressive and unreasonable" conduct and the protection of Article 10 rights — but also the manner in which the case stated had been prepared and presented.

Key issues included a significant 14‐month delay that far exceeded procedural expectations, a conflation of factual findings with legal conclusions, and an over-reliance on first instance documents (including lengthy transcripts and skeleton arguments) that obscured the intended focus at the appellate level.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, with judgments delivered by McCloskey LJ and McAlinden J, ultimately directed that the case be remitted to the deputy county court judge. Critically, the Court stressed the need for the formulation of an entirely new case stated—one that strictly conforms to the established procedural rules and clearly distinguishes between uncontested facts, the findings of fact, and the application of legal tests.

The judgment highlighted several procedural errors, notably the undue reliance on extraneous materials (e.g., transcripts and first instance skeleton arguments) and the improper segmentation of the appeal bundle. The Court identified that the new case stated did not satisfy the requirements laid out in precedents such as Emerson v Hearty and, more recently, James P Corey Transport Limited and Owen Jacobson v Belfast Harbour Commissioners ([2021] NICA 6).

Additionally, the decision underscored that the substantial delay in prosecuting the appeal was inconsistent with common law principles and the overriding objective of timely justice as contemplated by both procedural rules and Article 6 of the ECHR. As such, rather than dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, the Court remedied the situation by remitting the case—with strict instructions for revising the case stated within specified time limits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively discusses several key precedents that have shaped the rules and expectations governing appeals by case stated:

Emerson v Hearty [1946] NI 35: This early authority established the essential structure for a well‐crafted case stated. The judgment reiterates its principles, notably the separation of material facts, findings of fact, contentions, and legal conclusions.
King v Sunday Newspapers [2011] NICA 8: This case provided guidance on understanding what constitutes "oppressive and unreasonable" conduct. The present judgment criticizes the misapplication and mischaracterization of the legal test derived from this case, noting inconsistencies between the language of “oppressive and unacceptable” and the proper test.
James P Corey Transport Limited and Owen Jacobson v Belfast Harbour Commissioners [2021] NICA 6: Serving as a modern reference, this decision offers detailed guidance on the form and content of a case stated, emphasizing that findings of fact must be clearly delineated and separated from a mere recital of evidence.
Edwards v Bairstow: Although not elaborated in detail, the judgment briefly references this case to stress that the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to re-assess factual determinations, highlighting the importance of proper factual findings in the first instance.

Each of these precedents informed the Court's position on how the case stated should be structured and why the inclusion of extraneous materials contributed to confusion and delay. The judgment leverages these precedents to underscore that allowing the blending of evidence, findings, and legal conclusions not only violates procedural standards but also undermines the appellate court’s role.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is methodical and rooted in the existing framework of county court procedural rules, particularly Article 61 of the County Courts (NI) Order 1980 and the County Court Rules (NI) 1981. The court noted that:

The case stated was marred by inconsistencies. For example, headers within the document did not match the contents—material facts and inferred facts were misplaced or missing, and contentious evidence was improperly intermingled with legal analysis.
The appellate review should be confined to the agreed facts or findings of fact, rather than the entire first instance evidence. The inclusion of a 61-page transcript and unsolicited first instance skeleton arguments was deemed “bulk and obfuscation,” distracting from the pertinent legal issues.
Strict adherence to procedural rules is mandatory. The statutory time limits and guidelines (e.g., the 14-day window for applications, specific requirements of Order 32 of the County Court Rules) were not meaningfully observed, particularly in light of the 14-month delay that far exceeded the four-to-five month benchmark contemplated by procedure.

The legal reasoning further involved a detailed critique of the formulation of questions for the Court of Appeal. Notably, the formulation of questions that had ambiguous language (e.g., “material before the court”) was criticized for failing to clearly articulate the necessary factual findings that underpin the application of the relevant legal tests. This imprecision in legal phrasing directly impacted the Court's ability to make a clear determination on points relating to harassment and freedom of expression.

Impact

The judgment in Cavan v Bunting sets an important precedent that is likely to have considerable impact on:

Procedural Rigor: Future appeals by case stated will require a strictly formatted and concise presentation of uncontested material facts, findings of fact, and legal conclusions. Courts will be less tolerant of superfluous documentation that muddles the central legal issues.
Timely Prosecution: The decision reinforces that delays beyond the statutory limits are unacceptable. Enhanced judicial oversight in tracking procedural timelines will be expected, ensuring that appeals are managed expeditiously.
Separation of Evidence and Findings: The ruling clarifies that evidence recitals cannot replace clear judicial findings. This fosters a clearer distinction between what the trial judge establishes factually and what is later argued on a legal basis at the appellate level.
Interpretation of Legal Tests: The misapplication of legal tests, particularly regarding what qualifies as “oppressive and unreasonable” conduct or conduct constituting “torment,” will now be scrutinized and must be presented with precise reference to the established test and statutory requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid in understanding, several complex legal concepts from the judgment are explained in simpler terms:

Appeal by Case Stated: This is an appeal mechanism where a lower court asks the higher court to review its legal decision on a point of law. The procedure requires that the case stated must clearly show the uncontested facts, the findings of fact by the trial court, and how those findings led to the legal conclusion challenged on appeal.
Findings of Fact vs. Evidence Recitations: Findings of fact are the conclusions drawn by a judge after reviewing the evidence. Recitations of evidence simply list what was presented without the judge formally deciding on its validity or relevance. The judgment underscores that the appellate court is not in a position to re-evaluate raw evidence.
Legal Test for "Oppressive and Unreasonable" Conduct: This standard, derived from case law like King v Sunday Newspapers, requires that the conduct in question must be both oppressive (unduly burdensome or harmful) and unreasonable in the context of the circumstances. Clear and specific factual findings must support this determination.
Article 10 ECHR and Freedom of Expression: The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; it can be restricted under certain conditions. However, any such restriction must be clearly justified, particularly when interfering with a defendant's right to publish, requiring a finely balanced analysis under both statutory obligations and human rights considerations.

Conclusion

In sum, the Court of Appeal's decision in Cavan v Bunting establishes a new benchmark for appeals by case stated. The clear directives for expediting the proceedings, ensuring strict adherence to procedural rules, and accurately distinguishing factual findings from legal conclusions will guide future litigation. The judgment not only critiques past procedural errors but also embodies a forward-looking commitment to maintaining clarity, efficiency, and judicial discipline.

This decision is significant in that it calls upon legal practitioners and lower court judges to revisit and refine their approaches in preparing cases for appellate review. By mandating the production of a revised, precisely formulated case stated within strict timelines, the court aims to avoid the unnecessary delays and confusion that marred this appeal, thereby reinforcing the broader principles of justice and procedural integrity.