Nazir v Akindayini

An application to reinstate a refused application for permission to appeal, together with an extension of time, requires a meritorious and prompt explanation for the procedural failure and delay. The court must also consider the need for finality and fairness to a successful litigant who has held judgment for several years. Where the applicant failed to attend the permission hearing, was promptly notified of the refusal, and then delayed for about 15 months before applying again, the litigation had reached its proper end and reinstatement was refused.

The underlying claim arose from a tyre purchase in August 1992 and a subsequent road traffic accident. On 20 May 1997, His Honour Judge Hornby found that the tyre had been supplied by the defendant and entered judgment for the claimant in the sum of £2,523. Leave to appeal was refused on 11 July 1997.

An application for permission to appeal and an extension of time was listed before Mantell LJ in February 2000. Neither the applicant nor his solicitors attended, and the application was refused. The solicitors knew of the order by 28 February 2000. A renewed application to reinstate was not made until 8 May 2001. The issue was whether there was a sufficient basis to set aside Mantell LJ’s order.

1. Application refused. The application to set aside Mantell LJ’s order and reinstate the permission application was refused.
2. The court considered the applicant’s difficulties and his asserted wish to appeal, but the delay was unacceptable. The underlying cause of action was nearly nine years old, the judgment had stood for about four years, and approximately 15 months had passed after Mantell LJ’s refusal and its notification to the solicitors.
3. Litigation must reach an end. Reopening the matter would be unfair to the claimant, who had been the beneficiary of the judgment for several years. The court could identify no meritorious basis for reinstatement.
4. The applicant’s possible remedy lay, if anywhere, against his solicitors. The judge observed that solicitor negligence would not necessarily establish that consequential damages flowed. Those observations were not necessary to the decision. The judge also suggested that, if further litigation concerning the £2,523 claim were contemplated, the parties should consider alternative dispute resolution.

Order: Application for permission to set aside the order of Mantell LJ refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 31 July 2001, the application to set aside Mantell LJ’s refusal of permission to appeal and an extension of time was refused.
• Mantell LJ: In February 2000, the application for permission to appeal and an extension of time was refused after the applicant and his solicitors failed to attend the listed hearing.
• Bow County Court: On 20 May 1997, His Honour Judge Hornby entered judgment for the claimant for £2,523. Leave to appeal was refused on 11 July 1997.