Din v Cardiff County Council & Ors

In an application for permission to appeal out of time, the merits of the proposed appeal are the principal consideration. Permission should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success. Pleadings may be struck out under Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 where they disclose no sustainable cause of action. The assessment concerns the pleaded case, rather than evidence that cannot cure the absence of a legally coherent claim. Complaints about long-past administrative decisions should not be revived through fresh proceedings where statutory appeal or compensation procedures existed, earlier proceedings failed, or judicial review was not pursued.

The claimant sought renewed permission to appeal out of time from an order made by His Honour Judge Chambers QC in the Queen’s Bench Division at Cardiff. The judge struck out the writ, statement of claim and further particulars under Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 and purported to give summary judgment under Part 24, save for a possible nuisance claim concerning 13/14 Vere Street, in respect of which properly particularised fresh proceedings were permitted. The claimant challenged the strike-out and relied on evidence concerning complaints about the Council’s actions relating to several properties. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

Disposition

Lord Justice Peter Gibson dismissed the renewed application, and Lord Justice Keene agreed. The delay was substantial, but the court attached greatest importance to the merits of the proposed appeal.

1. Strike-out. The judge was entitled to exercise his discretion under Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 where the pleadings disclosed no sustainable cause of action. The question depended on the way the claim was pleaded. It did not depend on evidence produced to support an inadequately pleaded case.
2. Complaints about statutory administrative action. The claimant’s complaints concerned actions taken long before by the Council in exercising statutory functions relating to houses in multiple occupation under Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. Those provisions supplied statutory rights of appeal and, in particular cases, compensation. The claimant’s appeals had failed or had not been pursued, and judicial review proceedings had not been commenced. There was no realistic basis for reviving those complaints through the present proceedings.
3. Particular properties. The complaints concerning 108 Connaught Road had already been the subject of earlier proceedings and offered no realistic prospect of success. The complaints concerning 83/85 Connaught Road were even weaker because earlier proceedings had been struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. It was inappropriate to revive those complaints in further proceedings.
4. Remaining claim. Although the first-instance judge considered that the claim concerning 13/14 Vere Street might be arguable if completely redrafted, that limited liberty did not provide a realistic ground of appeal against the wider strike-out.
5. Order. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. Application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) refused permission to appeal out of time and dismissed the renewed application.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Cardiff District Registry struck out the pleadings under Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 and purported to give summary judgment under Part 24, while allowing properly particularised further proceedings concerning paragraph 28.