Day 6 – the Supreme Court

On Tuesday I paid my first visit to the Supreme Court, pictured here:

  

The first (and indeed only) case heard was an application for a motion to stay the execution of a judgment pending appeal.  The panel of five judges heard approximately forty-five minutes of argument.  I was struck by the forceful manner in which the judges questioned the lawyers and the direct criticism they meted out.  It was therefore something of a surprise afterwards when one of the lawyers observed how “nice” the panel had been that day.  

Afterwards I went briefly to the Commercial Court.  The case I was there to see was adjourned, but I did have the advantage of hearing a novel argument on costs.  The presiding judge had just given his decision, and asked counsel if there were any submissions as to costs – ie, any arguments on whether either side should be awarded their legal expenses.  He added, giving some indication of his thinking on the matter, that the defendant – the losing party – should have capitulated much earlier as his case was a weak one. 

The defendant’s lawyer stood up to argue the matter.  He began by demonstrating admirable realism with the words, “if your Lordship decides to give judgment against us”.  At this point he was interrupted by the judge reminding him that judgment had already been given against him.  This point was graciously conceded by the lawyer.  He then proceeded to state that, despite the defeat, costs should not be awarded against his client, “because one way or another, we have helped to develop the law”. 

Unfortunately, the judge did not appreciate the magnanimity of the defendant’s unselfish commitment to the expansion of legal knowledge: instead, words were stated to the effect that there was no new point to the defendant’s case whatsoever and it was entirely without intellectual interest.  The argument failed.