Bunting & Anor v Blaney & Anor (No. 2: Best Practice)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a consolidated Commercial Court judgment delivered 13 December 2024 and subsequent orders (one of which is dated 14 March 2025). Four distinct first-instance proceedings were consolidated and determined together: (i) Company A sued Defendant and Appellant for liquidated damages under personal guarantees (first case); (ii) Company A sought possession of a dwelling (second case); (iii) Company A sued Appellant for sums due under guarantees and indemnities (third case); and (iv) Plaintiff sought possession under a charge against Defendant (fourth case). Appellant served a notice of appeal; Company A served a respondent's notice under RCJ Order 59, Rule 6. The respondent's notice underwent multiple iterations, was repeatedly found deficient by the Court of Appeal, and generated several adjournments and case management orders requiring amendment and clarification.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Appellant's beneficial interest in the premises is 35% (as found at first instance) or 50% (or another equitable proportion).
2. Whether the order for possession and sale of the premises (with an eight-week stay) should have been stayed permanently in light of alleged negligence by the plaintiffs.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing or failing to determine applications to join a third party (a solicitors' firm) as a defendant.
4. Whether Company A's claimed beneficial interest in the premises is subject to its mortgage/security.
5. Whether Company A is entitled to a money judgment against Appellant in respect of ten personal guarantees and, if so, the correct quantification of that judgment.
6. Whether the respondent's notice complied with procedural requirements of RCJ Order 59, Rule 6 and whether the numerous defects justified strike-out, amendment or other procedural sanctions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Challenge to the factual finding that Appellant held only a 35% beneficial interest in the premises; contends true interest is 50% or such equitable share as the court deems fit.
• Contends the order for possession and sale (with an eight-week stay) should have been permanently stayed because plaintiffs were negligent.
• Contends the trial judge ignored applications to join a solicitors' firm as a third party, alleging conspiracy with Defendant to conceal transactions causing loss of the family home.
• Seeks striking out of plaintiffs' claims on the basis of ex turpi causa (as requested in the notice of appeal).

Respondent's (Company A) Contentions

• Seeks a declaration that any beneficial interest of Appellant in the premises is subject to Company A's mortgage/security.
• Seeks a money judgment against Appellant for a specified sum said to be due under ten personal guarantees.
• Filed a respondent's notice comprising multiple grounds (initially 32, later amended) alleging numerous errors of fact and law in the trial judgment and omissions in its reasoning, and requesting alternative relief or variation of the first-instance decision.
• Invoked RCJ Order 59, Rule 6 to advance alternative formulations of relief and to contend for affirmance or variation of the lower court's decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed both the substantive appeals and, in particular, the procedural quality of the respondent's notice. It found the respondent's notice in its initial and subsequent forms suffered from pervasive defects (obfuscation, repetition, lack of particularisation, failure to cross-refer to core bundles and transcripts, verbosity and incoherence). The Court explained the applicable rule (RCJ Order 59, Rule 6) and emphasised that respondent's notices must specify grounds and the precise form of order sought where relevant.

The panel recounts the sequence of attempts to cure defects: orders for amended pleadings, multiple adjournments, detailed case management hearings in which deficiencies were exhaustively identified, and a final improved version of the respondent's notice. The Court emphasised that defective grounds of appeal and respondent's notices consume disproportionate judicial resources and that the Court has the power to strike out defective notices on its own motion.

The Court then set out detailed guidance for formulation of grounds of appeal (principles (i)–(xv)), identifying common linguistic and structural errors to avoid (e.g., vague terms like "was in error", "erred in fact and law", failure to specify findings of fact or legal errors, improper recitation of evidence, need for cross-references to judgment paragraphs, and prohibition on legal argument within grounds).

Finally, the Court stated its intention that a stricter approach may be adopted in future to defective notices, noting potential adverse consequences including costs and legal aid implications for defaulting litigants or representatives.

Holding and Implications

Guidance issued on formulation of grounds of appeal and respondent's notices; defective pleadings were ordered to be amended and subjected to stricter scrutiny.

Implications:

• The Court required amendment of the respondent's notice and ordered case management steps (adjournments and further pleadings) to address defects; parties were given opportunities to rectify deficiencies before potential strike-out or other sanctions.
• The judgment furnishes substantive, binding guidance to practitioners and litigants on how grounds of appeal and respondent's notices must be framed (the Court set out specific do's and don'ts).
• The Court warned that a stricter approach to defective notices will be adopted in future, with possible adverse costs and legal aid consequences; no novel legal principle was asserted as a precedent beyond the procedural guidance supplied.