Secretary Of State For Trade And Industry v Grant & Ors

Where permission to appeal is limited to points of law, an appeal notice must identify grounds falling within that permission. A notice containing no such grounds is defective and ineffective. Failure to comply with an unless order requiring appeal bundles and the judgment transcript causes the appeal to stand dismissed without further order. On an application to reinstate, the court may adjourn to allow a litigant in person to obtain assistance in formulating effective grounds. Reinstatement may still fail if the grounds do not comply with the permission granted. An adjournment may be refused where the matter has already been delayed and the applicant will not be prejudiced.

The Secretary of State brought proceedings under the Financial Services Act 1986. Neuberger J restrained the first and second defendants from carrying on investment business without authorisation, made orders under sections 6(4) and 61(4) enabling receivers to recover approximately £46,500 from Mr Atkins, and ordered costs. Permission to appeal was granted to all parties only on points of law; permission on factual findings was refused.

Mr Atkins filed an appeal notice, but its grounds addressed the conduct and timing of the High Court hearing rather than points of law under the Act. He also failed to lodge the required bundles and transcript despite extensions of time. An unless order made by Deputy Master Joseph therefore took effect and the appeal stood dismissed. Mr Atkins applied for reinstatement after obtaining assistance from the Citizens Advice Bureau. The central issue was whether the reinstatement application should be adjourned or granted despite the continuing absence of effective grounds.

Master Venne refused Mr Atkins’s application to adjourn the hearing itself. The matter had already been delayed, and the refusal would not prejudice him in light of the conclusion reached. The application to reinstate the appeal was then adjourned and directed to be relisted in approximately four weeks.

1. Permission and grounds. The High Court’s order confined any appeal to points of law arising from the judgment and excluded challenges to factual findings. Mr Atkins’s appeal notice contained a detailed account of the handing down of the judgment and the short notice of a further hearing, but no ground relating to a point of law under the Financial Services Act 1986. It was therefore defective and, at that stage, ineffective.
2. Effect of the unless order. Mr Atkins failed to file satisfactory bundles and a transcript by the date specified in the unless order, notwithstanding several extensions. The order consequently took effect and the appeal remained dismissed without further order.
3. Opportunity to regularise the application. Although effective bundles had subsequently been filed with assistance from the Citizens Advice Bureau, there were still no effective grounds reflecting the limited permission to appeal. Master Venne adjourned the reinstatement application and strongly advised Mr Atkins to seek further help from the Bureau’s senior legal adviser.
4. Prospective consequence. The court warned that the reinstatement application might fail if effective grounds were not formulated. Even if reinstatement were granted, the appeal would probably be dismissed for want of effective grounds. A transcript of the judgment was directed to be provided at public expense to the relevant parties and advisers.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—present hearing: Master Venne refused the adjournment application and adjourned the application to reinstate the appeal for relisting.
2. Court of Appeal dismissal list: Deputy Master Joseph made an unless order requiring appeal bundles and a transcript by a specified date. The appeal stood dismissed when the order was not complied with.
3. High Court: Neuberger J made restraining and recovery orders and granted permission to appeal on points of law only; permission on factual findings was refused.