Wisdom (t/a S & J Property Services) v Silver

Permission to appeal may be dismissed where the applicant fails to attend without explanation. Independently, permission should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospects of success. An applicant seeking to appeal out of time must also provide proper grounds for extending time. Those conclusions apply where it is unclear which of two related decisions is being challenged, if neither possible appeal has merit.

The claimant obtained judgment in a small-claims dispute concerning the supply and installation of a boiler, a pump and associated materials. The defendant alleged defective work, sought to set aside the judgment on the basis of fresh evidence, and later sought to amend her defence and obtain disclosure from the claimant’s insurers. Those applications were refused, as was permission to appeal out of time. The defendant then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal but did not attend or explain her absence. The central issues were whether permission should be granted and whether an extension of time was justified.

1. Disposition. Per Lord Justice Dyson, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the applicant had failed to attend and had not communicated any explanation for her absence.
2. Merits. Having considered the papers, the court concluded that the application would inevitably have failed in any event. It was unclear whether the defendant sought to challenge the refusal to amend her defence and obtain further disclosure, or the refusal of permission to appeal the original county court judgment. Whichever decision was challenged, the proposed appeal had no real prospects of success.
3. Extension of time. The defendant had filed the notice of appeal against the original judgment approximately three months late and had also filed the notice to the Court of Appeal out of time. She had not demonstrated any proper reason for extending time. The absence of merit and the lack of justification for delay independently supported refusal of permission.
4. Underlying proceedings. The original judge had found that the boiler contract price was £900 plus VAT, that £266.14 was due for the pump and materials, and that the allegations of misrepresentation, damage and defective workmanship were unsupported. The later applications concerning fresh evidence, amendment and speculative disclosure did not provide a viable basis for appellate intervention.

Order: Application dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not attend and, independently, the proposed appeal had no real prospects of success and no proper basis for an extension of time.
2. Southend-on-Sea County Court: District Judge Gypps awarded the claimant sums for the boiler contract and pump materials, together with specified costs, rejecting the defendant’s allegations of misrepresentation, damage and defective workmanship.
3. Subsequent county court applications: District Judge Hamilton refused to set aside the judgment on the basis of fresh evidence. HHJ Yelton refused the proposed amendment and disclosure request and refused permission to appeal out of time.