Joyce v James & Anor

For a second appeal, permission depends on the criteria in rule 52.13 and section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. A challenge to a discretionary case-management decision about expert evidence does not, without more, raise a point of principle warranting Court of Appeal guidance. Where the trial court has not yet decided whether additional expert evidence may be called, directions for experts to meet and for that issue to be revisited at a pre-trial review are legitimate case-management steps. The overriding objective, including bringing litigation to a speedy conclusion and avoiding injustice, may reinforce refusal where an appeal would disrupt the timetable without causing practical prejudice.

The claimant brought a personal injury action arising from a 1994 road accident. Liability was admitted. His claim included an assertion of post-traumatic stress disorder supported by psychiatric reports from a treating psychiatrist and another expert. The second defendant challenged directions allowing reliance on both experts and requiring the psychiatric witnesses to meet.

A District Judge made the directions on 30 April 2001. His Honour Judge Parry dismissed the second defendant’s appeal on 11 July 2001. Clarke LJ refused permission on paper. The application was renewed orally before May LJ. The central issues were whether the proposed appeal satisfied the second-appeal threshold and whether the expert-evidence directions raised a point of principle under Part 35.

Disposition

May LJ refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. The formal order was: permission to appeal refused.

1. Second-appeal threshold. The proposed appeal was a second appeal, engaging rule 52.13 and section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The applicant came nowhere near satisfying the applicable criteria. The proposed grounds challenged the alleged duplication, cost and proportionality of the psychiatric evidence, but did not raise any great point of principle.
2. Expert evidence and case management. The relevant provisions of Part 35 were clear and involved a discretionary case-management decision. There was nothing wrong with directing the three psychiatric experts to meet and, if possible, reach agreement. The court had not yet finally decided whether the treating psychiatrist should be called at trial. That issue could properly be considered at the forthcoming pre-trial review, including in light of any application concerning later reports.
3. Later reports. The further reports produced after the earlier orders were not matters for determination on the renewed application. It remained open to the lower court to decide whether they, or evidence from either expert, should be permitted.
4. Overriding objective. The litigation had already continued for many years, and the trial timetable was intended to be maintained. Proceeding to the pre-trial review caused no injustice to the defendants, whereas an appeal would delay the case. Even if a point of principle had existed, this was not an appropriate case for general Court of Appeal guidance.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 August 2001, May LJ refused the renewed oral application for permission to appeal: [2001] EWCA Civ 1367.
2. Guildford County Court: His Honour Judge Parry dismissed an appeal on 11 July 2001 against case-management directions made by District Judge Derbyshire on 30 April 2001.
3. Earlier permission decision: Clarke LJ had refused permission to appeal on paper before the renewed application.