Barnett v Department Of Social Security

Where a monetary claim has been substantially satisfied, permission for a further appeal may properly be refused even though a theoretical issue of principle remains. The court should consider the practical relief that a successful appeal could achieve. An unresolved academic or procedural issue will not ordinarily justify continuing an appeal where the claimant’s legitimate objectives have effectively been met.

Where refusal depends on an undertaking or offer, the court may reserve liberty to apply if the promised payment or related concession does not materialise. The court may assess the offer on the basis of reasonable inferences about matters such as waiver of an adverse costs order.

David Barnett brought proceedings against the Department of Social Security concerning two income support payments and a cold weather payment. His claim had been struck out in the Clerkenwell County Court, and he had been ordered to pay £50 costs. He also maintained an associated claim for damages for misfeasance in public office.

On an adjourned application, he sought permission for a second appeal. The Court of Appeal considered an apparent issue of principle arising from the failure of the District Judge to record reasons for striking out the claim. During the proceedings, the Department offered to pay £134.50, £35 towards expenses, and apparently not to enforce the £50 costs order. The central issue was whether that offer provided sufficient practical satisfaction to make permission for a further appeal inappropriate.

The application for permission to bring a second appeal was refused.

1. Practical effect of the claim. The underlying proceedings were principally a claim for money. Although the failure of the District Judge to record reasons for striking out the claim raised a prima facie question of principle, that issue did not by itself justify allowing the case to continue if the monetary relief or its essential part was forthcoming.
2. Sufficiency of the offer. The Department had issued, or was understood to be about to issue, a payment of £134.50 and had offered £35 towards Mr Barnett’s expenses. The court treated the open offer as not requiring deduction of the £50 costs order below. On that basis, the offer was sufficient satisfaction of everything Mr Barnett could legitimately hope to obtain if permission were granted and the appeal succeeded. The absence of an offer of interest did not alter that conclusion.
3. Unresolved claims. Mr Barnett’s wish to preserve the misfeasance claim as a bargaining counter, and his disagreement with the amount offered for his time and expenses, did not justify permission for a second appeal. The court did not need to determine the merits of those issues.
4. Safeguard and order. Liberty to apply was reserved to Mr Barnett if the offer failed to materialise in the stated form, namely payment of £134.50, £35 towards expenses, and waiver of the £50 costs order. If those terms were fulfilled, the matter was at an end.

• Clerkenwell County Court: the claim was struck out, and the claimant was ordered to pay £50 costs.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Sedley refused permission for a second appeal, while reserving liberty to apply if the Department’s offer did not materialise as understood.