Sharma v Shandil

The appeal concerned an application for leave to appeal a decision of a primary judge who had refused to allow a party to withdraw a concession made by their counsel. The parties involved were Sharma (applicant) and Shandil (respondent).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in refusing to permit the withdrawal of the concession. This required the Court to consider the circumstances under which a party should be allowed to resile from a concession made by their legal representative, particularly where the concession was made during the course of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that for a party to be permitted to withdraw a concession, it must be demonstrated that counsel was overborne in making the concession, or that there were other compelling reasons to allow the withdrawal. In this instance, the Court found that there were no reasonable prospects of success for the appeal, as the applicant had not established that counsel had been overborne or that the concession was made under duress or error. The Court noted the importance of the finality of litigation and the need for parties to be bound by concessions made by their representatives, absent exceptional circumstances.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.