Treppass v Hurst & Anor

Permission to appeal against a refusal to stay execution should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no substantive issue and merely seek to reopen matters already addressed. Alleged dishonesty concerning one costs order does not, without more, reopen separate costs orders or a charging order supported by other orders. A late request for an adjournment to obtain advice about speculative future challenges does not justify delaying possession.

The defendants sought permission to appeal from an order of Neuberger J dismissing their application for a stay of execution of a possession order concerning their home. The possession order followed a charging order securing costs owed to the claimant after long-running partnership litigation and numerous unsuccessful applications. The defendants relied on a cheque paid from House of Lords security for costs and alleged that the claimant’s conduct called earlier costs orders into question. They also sought time to consult the trustee in bankruptcy and obtain legal advice. The issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable basis for a further stay or appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for permission to appeal and made no order as to costs.

1. The application concerned a further stay of a possession order. Parker LJ accepted Neuberger J’s assessment that there were no points of substance requiring litigation and that it was far too late to adjourn the matter so that Mrs Hurst could seek legal advice. The proposed appeal therefore had no chance of success, and there was no basis for further delaying execution.
2. The alleged irregularity concerned the treatment of a House of Lords costs payment and the claimant’s status as a litigant in person. Even assuming dishonesty, that issue could at most affect one costs order. Other costs orders were unaffected and had independently contributed to the charging order. The allegation therefore did not reopen the earlier litigation, invalidate the charging order, or justify a stay.
3. The Court rejected the submission that Neuberger J had been improperly influenced by earlier decisions or should have confined his attention to events after the date on which the cheque was discovered. The judge had considered the relevant issues carefully and thoroughly. A request for time to investigate possible proceedings with the trustee in bankruptcy, or to instruct specialist counsel, could not convert insubstantial points into an arguable appeal.

Permission was refused and the application was dismissed, with no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2001] EWCA Civ 1514: Parker LJ dismissed the application for permission to appeal against Neuberger J’s refusal of a stay of execution.
2. Chancery Division — Neuberger J dismissed the application for a stay of execution of the possession order. No citation for that order is stated in the judgment.