Richardson v Leonard Cohen and Co (A Firm) [No 2]

The appeal was brought by Richardson against Leonard Cohen and Co (A Firm), in which the appellant sought an extension of time to comply with a springing order. This order was made in a previous appeal, which was itself an appeal against the imposition of the springing order. The matter was finally determined by that earlier appeal, and judgment had been entered for the respondent. The appellant's current appeal was against the refusal to extend time to comply with the springing order.

The legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the appeal against the refusal to extend time to comply with the springing order should be allowed. The court had to consider whether the refusal to extend time was an appealable order and whether the appeal was brought within the appropriate timeframe. The court also had to examine whether the refusal to extend time was a final order, as the matter had already been finally determined by the earlier appeal.

The court found that the refusal to extend time to comply with the springing order was not an appealable order. The court reasoned that the matter had already been finally determined by the earlier appeal, and the refusal to extend time was not a final order in itself. The court held that the appeal was not brought within the appropriate timeframe, and the appeal against the refusal to extend time was dismissed. The court found that the respondent was not prejudiced by the delay in complying with the springing order, and the refusal to extend time was not an appealable order. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court below was affirmed.