Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri

A single Lord Justice listed to determine an application is, subject to the statutory scheme and applicable directions, a duly constituted court of the Civil Division. The Court of Appeal therefore has no power to hear an appeal from, or review or revisit, a decision made by a single Lord Justice on an application for permission to appeal. The court’s jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be expanded by an asserted inherent jurisdiction. Applications designed to reopen litigation after permission to appeal has been refused may be dismissed as attempts to prolong proceedings. A Mackenzie friend has no general right to act as an advocate, and the court should be slow to permit such conduct.

Paragon Finance Plc had obtained possession orders concerning the applicant’s mortgaged home. The applicant’s appeal had been dismissed by the Willesden County Court, and permission to pursue a further appeal had been refused by Keene LJ.

The applicant then sought to appeal or review a further order by Keene LJ striking out an application under Order 52 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He also sought stays and permission to adduce further evidence. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review a single Lord Justice’s decision made in open court.

1. All three applications dismissed. The ancillary applications, including applications for stays and permission to adduce further evidence, were also dismissed.
2. The distinction formerly drawn between a single Lord Justice’s determination of permission to appeal and other determinations had been removed by the repeal of section 54(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and the amendments made by the Access to Justice Act 1999.
3. Under section 54(2) to (4) of the amended Supreme Court Act 1981, a court of the Civil Division may consist of one or more judges. Where an application is properly listed before a single Lord Justice, that judge is, for relevant purposes, a court of the Civil Division.
4. Order 52 rule 16(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides the applicable reconsideration procedure for a decision of a single judge or a court officer made without a hearing. It does not confer a general appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over a decision already made by a single Lord Justice in open court.
5. The Court of Appeal is governed entirely by statute. It therefore had no power to hear an appeal from, review, or revisit Keene LJ’s order. The proceedings had effectively ended when permission to appeal from the county court decision was refused.
6. Separately, the court expressed grave doubt whether Mr Alexander was a proper person to act as a Mackenzie friend or lay representative. The court endorsed the warning in R v Bow County Court ex parte Pelling that a person who uses a litigant as a puppet may properly be excluded. The question of any restricting order was adjourned for consideration by a differently constituted court.

• Willesden County Court: possession and warrant orders were maintained; an application to set them aside was refused, and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by His Honour Judge Krikler.
• High Court: Hallett J struck out a misconceived notice of appeal. Keene LJ later refused permission for a further appeal and subsequently struck out an attempt to appeal Hallett J’s order under Order 52 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the applications to appeal from or review Keene LJ’s order, together with stays and related applications, were dismissed.