Patel v Panic Link

Permission granted by a County Court for a further appeal is ineffective where Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55(1), requires permission from the Court of Appeal. A substantial and inadequately explained delay in pursuing an appeal may itself justify refusing an extension of time. The fact that the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle does not outweigh the respondent’s prejudice where the same issue is shortly to be considered in other appeals.

The application arose from a road traffic accident claim. Liability was admitted, but the County Court limited damages to the cost of temporary repairs because the claimant’s credit repair agreement was considered unenforceable following Dimond v Lovell, [2000] 2 WLR 1121.

A District Judge’s assessment was upheld by His Honour Judge Tibber on 19 October 1999. Judge Tibber purported to grant permission for a further appeal, but that permission was ineffective under section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The claimant sought a further extension of time after failing to pursue an earlier extension. The central proposed issue was whether the reasoning in Dimond v Lovell affected claims for physical damage to a vehicle where repairs were obtained without cost to the claimant.

1. Application dismissed. The application for an extension of time was refused, with costs assessed at £963.79.
2. Under section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, where a County Court has decided an appeal, a further appeal to the Court of Appeal requires permission from the Court of Appeal. The County Court’s purported permission therefore had no effect. The judgment also referred to CPR 52.13 as part of the applicable permission regime.
3. The notice of appeal was initially one day late. An extension was later granted until 17 January 2000, but the claimant did not file the necessary notice and fee within that period. After the Civil Appeals Office confirmed in July 2000 that those steps were required, the claimant’s solicitors waited until November 2000 to act, offering no adequate explanation for the delay. A further year had then passed before the present application.
4. The proposed appeal raised an issue of general importance concerning the effect of Dimond v Lovell on claims for vehicle damage under credit repair agreements. However, that issue was already raised in Burdiss v Lidsey, [2001] 1 WLR 1751, and Clark v Ardington Electrical Services, both of which were or were expected to be the subject of appeals to the Court of Appeal.
5. In those circumstances, the general importance of the issue did not justify subjecting the respondent to the potential expense of a very late appeal. The delay was fatal and there was no good reason to grant the requested indulgence.

• Gloucester County Court: The District Judge awarded the claimant approximately £465 for temporary repairs and rejected further repair and replacement-vehicle claims.
• Gloucester County Court, 19 October 1999: His Honour Judge Tibber dismissed the claimant’s appeal. His purported permission for a further appeal was ineffective under section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for a further extension of time was dismissed with costs.