Pitts v Hartman & Ors

In an application for permission to appeal, compliance with directions concerning appeal bundles is required before further consideration. A bundle lacking pagination, an effective index and sufficient copies is materially defective. The court may direct that the application stand dismissed with costs unless the defects are remedied within a specified period. A request for a transcript at public expense may be deferred until the required procedural compliance has occurred.

The claimant sought permission to appeal orders made by Sullivan J on 26 June 2000. Sullivan J had dismissed an application to set aside orders made by Gibbs J on 5 May 2000, which struck out the claim and statement of case against the fourth defendant, a psychiatrist who had prepared a report concerning the claimant’s grandchild in custody proceedings.

The claimant was unrepresented and had failed to provide a compliant appeal bundle despite an extension of time. The central issue was whether the application should proceed, and whether a transcript could be obtained at public expense, in those circumstances.

1. Conditional dismissal. The application for permission to appeal was subject to compliance with the court’s requirements for appeal bundles. The bundle provided was plainly defective because it lacked pagination, had no effective index, and appeared to contain only one copy. Unless the bundle complied with the court’s requirements in every regard within 14 days of sealing the order, the application was to stand dismissed with costs without further order.
2. Transcript at public expense. The claimant had also applied for a transcript of the judgment at public expense. No action was to be taken on that request until a compliant bundle had been filed. If compliance was achieved, consideration could then be given to obtaining the transcript.
3. Nature of decision. The order was made on procedural grounds arising from failure to comply with directions. The court did not determine the substantive merits of the proposed appeal or the underlying claim.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Master Venne made a conditional order that the application stand dismissed with costs unless a compliant bundle was filed within 14 days of sealing the order.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Sullivan J dismissed the claimant’s application on 26 June 2000 to set aside orders made by Gibbs J.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Gibbs J struck out the claim and statement of case against the fourth defendant on 5 May 2000.