Siddiq v Kings College, London

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. This is stricter than the ordinary real-prospect-of-success test. Discrimination claims brought outside the applicable six-month period are out of time, subject to an extension only where it is just and equitable. An uncertain prospect of legal representation, proposed new evidence unrelated to the pleaded claim, and broad human-rights complaints do not satisfy the second-appeal test. An adjournment is also unjustified where the applicant has had ample opportunity to arrange representation.

The claimant alleged race and sex discrimination by Kings College, London during her undergraduate studies. The County Court proceedings were issued on 18 August 1999. District Judge Haselgrove struck out the claims as out of time and refused to extend time. His Honour Judge Knight dismissed the claimant’s appeal on 1 September 2000.

The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission for a second appeal. She also sought an adjournment to obtain legal representation and permission to introduce further allegations and evidence, including wider complaints involving other persons and organisations. The central issues were whether an adjournment was justified and whether the proposed appeal satisfied the second-appeal permission test.

Applications refused.

1. The adjournment application was refused. The only evidence of possible representation was a letter from the National Union of Journalists stating that enquiries would be made. That did not provide a sufficient basis for postponing the hearing. The claimant had also had ample time since the County Court appeal to arrange representation.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 52.13(2), permission for a second appeal could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The test was stricter than the real-prospect-of-success test applicable to an ordinary appeal.
3. The proposed appeal disclosed no such point or compelling reason. The claim form concerned alleged race and sex discrimination by the College during the claimant’s undergraduate studies. The proceedings were issued more than six months after the last alleged discriminatory act, identified as the completion of the College’s internal procedures on 10 July 1998. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that an extension of time was not just and equitable. His Honour Judge Knight was right to dismiss the appeal.
4. The Court dealt only with the proceedings against the College based on the claim form issued on 18 August 1999. The claimant’s wider complaints and proposed new allegations against other persons were outside the scope of the application and did not justify permission or a rehearing.

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 February 2001, refused the applications for an adjournment, permission to introduce new evidence, and permission for a second appeal.
2. Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Knight dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the District Judge’s order on 1 September 2000.
3. Central London County Court: District Judge Haselgrove struck out the claims as out of time and refused to extend time on 13 April 2000.