Thakrar & Anor v Thakrar & Ors

A renewed application for permission to appeal is a discretionary, threshold application. The Court of Appeal may grant permission when narrowly persuaded that the proposed appeal should proceed, while leaving an application to adduce further evidence for determination by the full court. At the permission stage, it need not determine the merits of the challenge to the lower court’s exercise of discretion. Costs of the permission applications may be ordered as costs in the appeal.

The applicants sought permission to appeal against costs orders made by His Honour Judge Boggis, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, in three related applications concerning alleged transactions intended to put assets beyond creditors’ reach. The High Court ordered Urmila Thakrar to pay the costs of one application, Reena Thakrar to pay the costs of another, and both applicants to pay 75 per cent of the costs of the third.

The applications were made in the context of proceedings under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The applicants also sought to adduce further evidence, including statements addressing their knowledge of the relevant transactions. The central questions were whether permission to appeal should be granted and whether the further-evidence applications should be determined at the permission stage or adjourned to the full appeal hearing.

The renewed applications for permission to appeal were granted in relation to all three costs orders. The applications to adduce further evidence were adjourned to the hearing of the appeals by the full court.

1. The applicants challenged only the costs orders made in applications 101, 103 and 104. Lord Justice Robert Walker stated that he was finally and narrowly persuaded that permission should be given. He did not determine the merits of the proposed challenges to the judge’s exercise of discretion.
2. The further evidence included statements by Urmila and Reena concerning the documents they had signed and their knowledge of investments made in their names. Whether that evidence should be admitted, and any consequential issues including possible cross-examination, were left for consideration at the appeal hearing.
3. The underlying applications arose under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The orders permitting those applications to continue were made under section 424(1)(a), for the benefit of every victim of the impugned transactions under section 424(2). Those provisions formed part of the procedural background; the Court of Appeal did not decide the substantive claims.
4. The judge expressly refrained from examining in detail the reasons given by the High Court for its costs decision or the grounds advanced against that decision. Matters including the relevance and foundation of the lower judge’s reasons were reserved for the full appeal.

The costs of the permission applications were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On renewed applications, granted permission to appeal against the three costs orders and adjourned the applications to adduce further evidence to the full appeal hearing. The costs of the permission applications were made costs in the appeal. [2001] EWCA Civ 1475
2. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: His Honour Judge Boggis made the three costs orders on 18 June 2001 in related applications concerning transactions alleged to defraud creditors.