Colchester v Seares & Anor

An application to extend time for appealing must be supported by a good reason for the delay. A litigant in person may receive appropriate allowance, but that does not remove the need to explain serious and prolonged delay, particularly where the applicant knew of the right to appeal. Permission should also be refused where the proposed grounds have no merit. A judgment settles matters within the claim, and further proceedings cannot justify an out-of-time appeal.

Miss Colchester applied for an extension of time and permission to appeal against a Southampton County Court judgment given by His Honour Judge Rudd on 7 October 1999. The claims against her son and daughter-in-law concerned money, a motor vehicle and furniture said to have been lent rather than given. The county court rejected the claims, principally treating them as involving recovery of the proceeds of crime.

Miss Colchester delayed more than a year before pursuing an appeal. She relied on severe depression, correspondence with the Hampshire Constabulary and later small-claims proceedings. She also challenged the evidence, alleged that counsel had misled the judge, alleged bias and complained that the judgment prevented further proceedings. The issues were whether time should be extended and whether any proposed ground justified permission to appeal.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Rix refused both an extension of time and permission to appeal.
2. The delay was very serious. Even on the applicant’s preferred filing date, more than a year had passed since the county court judgment. Although she was acting in person and the court made full allowance for that circumstance, she knew of her right to appeal and had previously exercised it. Her depression and attempts to obtain police action did not adequately explain the further delay after 8 March 2000.
3. The proposed grounds did not justify permission. The police letter did not remove the difficulty arising from the applicant’s admitted convictions for mortgage fraud and obtaining credit by deception. The complaint about counsel concerned the presentation of the defendants’ case, and there was no reason to conclude that counsel had acted improperly or misled the judge. The applicant’s obligations to friends who had lent her money did not affect the dispute with the defendants. The county court judgment disclosed no apparent bias.
4. A judgment settles the matters that were before the court. If later proceedings concerned matters already covered by the judgment, pursuing them would not establish injustice. If they concerned different matters, they could be pursued independently of the proposed appeal. The application had principally been brought to assist further litigation and disclosed no proper basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 June 2001, Lord Justice Rix refused an extension of time and permission to appeal.
• Southampton County Court: His Honour Judge Rudd gave judgment against Miss Colchester on 7 October 1999.