IBC Vehicles Ltd v Higgs

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. An alleged error by the lower court does not, by itself, satisfy that threshold.

Where a lower court has exercised a costs discretion and the decision has been properly reviewed, dissatisfaction with the result gives no basis for appellate intervention absent an identified error of principle or other proper ground.

The claimant succeeded in an action and was awarded damages of just under £1,200, with costs to be taxed on county court Scale 1. Its bill exceeded £18,000, and the District Judge exercised the discretion under County Court Rules 1981 Order 38 rule 9 to allow a larger sum.

Judge Farnworth and two assessors dismissed the defendant’s appeal on 15 March 2001. The defendant sought permission for a second appeal, arguing that the lower court had failed to apply the principles in Daniels v London Borough of Lambeth. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal disclosed an important point of principle or practice, or a compelling reason for a further appeal.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice, and there was no compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear a second appeal.

2. The court rejected the submission that an obvious error by the judge below automatically constituted a compelling reason. It was unnecessary to decide that broader submission because no relevant error had been shown.

3. Daniels v London Borough of Lambeth was binding and stated the appropriate procedure where the grant of a certificate permitting costs above the applicable scale was in issue. Judge Farnworth’s judgment showed that the principles in Daniels had been considered and applied, rather than merely acknowledged.

4. The District Judge had exercised the discretion under County Court Rules 1981 Order 38 rule 9. The subsequent review was properly conducted. The conclusion that the nature of the case and the conduct of the proceedings justified costs exceeding Scale 1 was within the permissible range.

5. The Court of Appeal therefore had no basis to interfere with the discretionary costs decision. The application for permission was refused, with costs assessed at an agreed figure.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to bring a second appeal refused.
• Luton County Court: On 15 March 2001, Judge Farnworth and two assessors dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the District Judge’s costs determination.
• District Judge: Determined the points of dispute on 12 June 2000 and exercised the discretion to allow costs exceeding Scale 1.