G (Children)

[2001] EWCA Civ 1433

Case details

Case citations
[2001] EWCA Civ 1433
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
14 September 2001
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Family Civil procedure Permission to appeal
Keywords
leave to apply residence and contact orders maternal aunt Children Act 1998 section 55 Access to Justice Act 1999 important point of law or practice compelling reason broad statutory discretion
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where an applicant has already appealed in the court of trial, section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 prevents the Court of Appeal granting permission unless an important point of law or practice, or another compelling reason, is demonstrated. The hurdle is especially demanding where the lower courts have exercised a broad statutory discretion concerning permission to apply. Strong personal concerns, disagreement with a reporter’s advice, and a proposed challenge to the reporter’s evidence do not by themselves satisfy that test.

Factual background

A maternal aunt sought leave to apply for residence and/or contact orders concerning three children. The District Judge dismissed her application, and His Honour Judge Tyzack QC dismissed her appeal on 1 June 2001. She then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether her complaints disclosed the important point of law or practice, or other compelling reason, required by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Held

  1. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The application was subject to section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 because there had already been an appeal in the court of trial.
  2. Under section 55, permission could not be granted unless the applicant demonstrated an important point of law or practice, or some other compelling reason. That was a particularly difficult hurdle where the lower courts had exercised a broad statutory discretion to grant or refuse permission to apply.
  3. The lower courts had paid particular heed to the section 7 reporter’s advice that the application for leave should be refused. The applicant’s criticisms of the reporter and her wish to cross-examine him did not disclose a point or reason satisfying the statutory test.
  4. The applicant’s sincere and strongly held concerns for the children were recognised, but they could not overcome the statutory restriction. The formal order was: application for permission to appeal refused.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Truro County Court: District Judge Thomas dismissed the application for leave to apply on 12 April 2001.
  • Truro County Court: His Honour Judge Tyzack QC dismissed the appeal on 1 June 2001.
  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal on 14 September 2001 under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application for permission to appeal refused

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.