Foster,.-Sutton, P. We hold that this Court has no power to grant leave to amend the Notice of Appeal-to do so would have the effect of granting leave to appeal from a decision against which there has been no appeal filed. The position is that there is no appeal before us. On the question as to whether or not the decision of 1st April, 1953, was an interlocutory or final one. The question for determination is-does the order under appeal finally dispose of the rights of the parties. In our view it does not.
Note: In re Jerome (1); Peek v. Peek (2). If the learned trial Judge had agreed to review his judgment, Order 41, that decision could clearly not have finally disposed of the rights of the parties, and a refusal to review does not because it is the judgment which is the subject of the application for review which finally disposed of the rights of the parties, not the trial Judge's refusal to review it.
We accordingly hold that the .refusal to review was an interlocutory decision and special leave to appeal from it not having been obtained, paragraph (3) of section (3) of Chapter 5, this appeal is not properly before us.
In the circumstances this appeal is struck out with costs fixed at £9 11s. 0d. This takes into account the costs of the previous hearing-adjusted by reducing the fee allowed to counsel on the appeal from £10 10s. 0d. to £5 5s. 0d. Appeal struck out.