Sunrise Radio Limited v Sharma

The court’s power to permit payment of a costs order by instalments is discretionary. An appellate challenge to its exercise requires an identifiable error of law or a proper basis for appellate intervention. Where the lower court has considered the statutory discretion, the relevant financial circumstances, compliance with the costs order and the practical length of repayment, the Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because the paying party has limited means or is unrepresented. A refusal of permission is appropriate where the proposed appeal has no realistic basis for challenging that exercise of discretion.

The defendant sought permission to appeal against the refusal of his application to discharge a county court costs order by instalments. The costs order followed the refusal of his application to amend his defence to add a substantial counterclaim. An earlier application for instalments had been dismissed by a district judge and was renewed before the recorder, who again refused it.

The recorder considered the defendant’s income-support position, disability, failure to make any payment, the applicable costs rules and the proposed repayment period. The central issue was whether that discretionary refusal was open to challenge on appeal.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application was hopeless. The Court of Appeal could identify no possible ground on which the recorder’s exercise of discretion could properly be challenged.
2. Section 71 of the County Courts Act 1984 confers a discretion to provide for payment of an order for costs by instalments. The recorder directed himself to that discretion and considered the relevant circumstances, including the defendant’s financial position, disability, failure to make any payment and the length of the proposed repayment period.
3. The reference to the general rule in CPR Part 44 that costs orders should be complied with within 14 days formed part of the recorder’s consideration of the instalment application. It did not disclose an error capable of supporting an appeal.
4. The defendant’s lack of legal experience and financial hardship were taken into account but did not establish any appealable error. The order refusing payment by instalments was therefore treated as invulnerable to appellate challenge.
5. Order: permission to appeal refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
2. Central London County Court: Mr Recorder Merriman dismissed the renewed application for payment of the costs by instalments on 1 March 2001.
3. Central London County Court: a district judge had earlier dismissed the application for payment by instalments. Judge Goldstein had ordered payment of assessed costs after refusing an amendment application.