Adebiyi v Jimgo's Reconditioned Electrical Appliance Centre

In a small claim, an appeal lies only for a mistake of law or a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings. A further appeal to the Court of Appeal requires a point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for permission. Dissatisfaction with the amount of damages, including refusal of ancillary losses, does not itself satisfy those thresholds. Whether particular consequential losses are recoverable for breach of contract is a question of fact, not law. Procedural mishandling by the county court may give rise to a legitimate grievance, but it does not invalidate a later judgment or make the defendant responsible for that mishandling.

The claimant purchased a reconditioned washing machine for £100 and paid £50 for installation. The machine soon broke down, and she brought a county court claim for breach of contract and consequential losses.

A judgment entered in the defendant's absence was set aside. After a hearing at which both parties gave evidence, District Judge Gordon awarded £150 damages, £45 for expenses and £100 costs. The claimant appealed to His Honour Judge Marr-Johnson, who dismissed the appeal on 25 August 2000. She then applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, seeking further losses for items including travel, postage, telephone calls, loss of wages and continuing launderette expenses. The central issues were whether the refusal to award those losses involved an error of law or procedural irregularity, and whether there was any basis for a further appeal.

Application for permission to appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Tuckey gave the single judgment.

1. Because the proceedings were a small claim, the appeal to the county court could be brought only for a mistake of law or a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings. A further appeal to the Court of Appeal required a point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason for permission.
2. The district judge had rejected the defendant's case that the washing machine was not defective and had awarded the claimant the cost of the machine and its installation, together with expenses and costs. The judge had also considered whether additional losses should be awarded and decided not to do so. That decision did not involve a mistake of law or a procedural impropriety.
3. Whether losses of the type claimed were recoverable in an action for damages for breach of contract was a question of fact, not a question of law. The fact that an earlier judge had awarded some additional losses did not establish that the claimant was legally entitled to them.
4. The county court's earlier handling of the claim, including dismissing it in the parties' absence and later setting that order aside, gave the claimant a legitimate grievance. That grievance could not be visited on the defendant and did not invalidate the judgment following the contested hearing.
5. Judge Marr-Johnson was therefore right to dismiss the appeal. There was no conceivable point of principle or practice, and no other compelling reason, requiring permission to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 31 January 2001, Lord Justice Tuckey dismissed the claimant's application for permission to appeal.
• Mayor's & City of London County Court: His Honour Judge Marr-Johnson dismissed the claimant's appeal on 25 August 2000.
• District Judge, Mayor's & City of London County Court: District Judge Gordon awarded £150 damages, £45 expenses and £100 costs on 19 July 2000 after hearing evidence from both parties. An earlier judgment entered in the defendant's absence had been set aside.