Barnes v Woolwich Plc

An application for permission to appeal under section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 succeeds only if the court is satisfied that the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or that there is another compelling reason for hearing it. The applicant must address that statutory threshold. A history of repeated applications and prior decisions may justify an order requiring permission before further applications are made in the same litigation.

The dispute arose from mortgage possession proceedings concerning Hill Top Cottage. After a possession order, repeated applications for stays and appeals were made in the county court and High Court. A Grepe v Loam order required permission before further applications concerning the property could be made.

Patten J dismissed applications on 13 September 2001, including an application for a stay and related relief. Mr Barnes sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the statutory permission threshold was met and whether further applications should be restricted.

1. Permission refused. The application fell within section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Permission could be granted only if the court was satisfied that the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or that there was another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
2. The court was not satisfied on the papers that either statutory condition was met. The matters advanced by Mr Barnes, including his proposed bankruptcy appeal, alleged procedural unfairness, and assertions concerning the value of properties and the trustee’s position, did not establish the required threshold in relation to the orders made by Patten J.
3. The court dismissed the applications for permission to appeal against the orders of 13 September 2001.
4. In light of the extensive procedural history and the earlier Grepe v Loam order, the court ordered that no further application should be set down in the Court of Appeal concerning the Hill Top Cottage litigation without the written permission of a single Lord Justice.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against the orders of Patten J dated 13 September 2001 was refused. A further restriction was imposed on applications concerning the Hill Top Cottage litigation.
• High Court: Patten J dismissed the applications before him on 13 September 2001 and declined to interfere with execution of the possession order.
• County court: Earlier possession and stay applications were determined, and a Grepe v Loam order was made on 2 February 2001 requiring permission for further applications.