Stratal Limited v Yellowsun Limited & Anor

A decision of the High Court refusing permission to appeal to that court is not itself appealable to the Court of Appeal. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 prevents such an appeal, and the provision permitting a further application for permission does not create an appellate route. A possible appeal against a separate consequential order, such as a costs order, does not assist where a stay of execution has no purpose because no further appeal can proceed.

Stratal Ltd obtained an order for possession of land against Yellowsun Ltd and David De Vere under the procedure formerly contained in Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 and then in Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The Master granted possession and refused permission to appeal. Patten J dismissed applications for permission to appeal to the High Court and for a stay of execution.

The defendants then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. They argued that the High Court’s refusal of permission was appealable and relied alternatively on the separate stay order. The central issue was the effect of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

1. Permission to appeal refused. Lord Justice Chadwick held that section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that no appeal may be made against a decision under the statutory permission regime to give or refuse permission. The parenthetical provision preserving a right under rules of court to make a further application for permission does not create an appeal in a case of this kind.
2. The Court applied the explanation in Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks, [2000] 4 All ER 1 at 6 and [2001] 1 WLR 17 at paragraphs 19 and 20. The Court accepted that its jurisdiction was wholly statutory and that it had no inherent jurisdiction to hear an appeal against refusal of permission to appeal to the High Court.
3. The alternative challenge to the stay of execution could not succeed. Although a separate consequential order might theoretically be appealable with permission, a stay had no legal foundation where permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was unavailable. The applications were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from Patten J’s order of 25 June 2001 was refused.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Patten J dismissed the applications for permission to appeal and for a stay of execution.
• Master Moncaster: An order for possession was made under the procedure formerly contained in Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965, then CPR Part 8, with costs ordered against the defendants.