Al-Hasani v Shaban

After an appeal has already been heard in the court of trial, permission for a further appeal requires an important point of law or practice, or another compelling reason, under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Personal hardship, dissatisfaction with financial orders, or the costs of maintaining contact do not by themselves satisfy that threshold. Whether to proceed in an applicant’s absence is a matter for the judge’s discretion. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where that discretion was carefully exercised and the underlying appeal was hopeless.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from the order and judgment of Munby J dated 6 June 2001. That decision followed an appeal from financial orders made by District Judge Maple on 29 March 2001 after the parties’ divorce. The orders required payment of a lump sum and periodical payments, with different rates before and after the wife and children’s proposed emigration to Canada, and regulated contact with the children.

The applicant challenged the financial burden and contact arrangements. He also argued that the appeal before Munby J should not have proceeded in his absence because he had supplied a statement referring to an upper respiratory tract infection and asthma. The central question was whether the statutory permission threshold, or a compelling reason arising from the hearing in his absence, had been established.

Application dismissed. Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal and ordered that the application be dismissed.

1. Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 precluded permission where an appeal had already been heard in the court of trial unless the applicant demonstrated an important point of law or practice, or another compelling reason. The applicant’s objections to the level and duration of maintenance, the proposed emigration arrangements, and the expense of contact did not meet that test.
2. The decision to proceed in the applicant’s absence was a matter for the discretion of the judge below. That discretion had been exercised after a careful review of the issues. The judge had concluded that the appeal against the district judge’s discretionary ruling was hopeless and that an adjournment would merely increase the applicant’s existing costs burden.
3. The applicant’s illness and absence did not demonstrate that the decision below was wrong. Although the court recognised the applicant’s personal difficulties, granting permission would only create another hearing with an obvious risk of further costs and would not provide useful relief.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 27 September 2001, permission to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.
2. Family Division — Munby J gave judgment and made an order on 6 June 2001 after hearing the applicant’s appeal in his absence; the appeal was treated as hopeless.
3. Principal Registry, Family Division — District Judge Maple determined the parties’ financial issues on 29 March 2001, ordering a lump sum and periodical payments and making provision for contact.