Assi v Leeds Metropolitan University

Permission for a second-tier appeal should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason. A party cannot use an interlocutory disclosure application to introduce documents at the appellate stage where the documents could have been obtained earlier. Where the substantive appeal is pending, any order for disclosure must be made by the appellate court. Disclosure will also be refused where the documents are irrelevant to the proceedings.

The applicant brought proceedings against the respondent university concerning an alleged compromise of an internal dispute about his research post. After an earlier judgment against him, and while his substantive appeal was pending, he sought disclosure of documents from the university, his former solicitors and the university’s solicitors.

District Judge Atherton refused the application as irrelevant and unnecessary. His Honour Judge Taylor dismissed the appeal, holding that the request would introduce new evidence, that the documents could have been obtained earlier, and that only the Court of Appeal could order disclosure while the appeal was pending. The applicant sought permission for a second appeal.

1. Permission threshold. The Court of Appeal could grant permission for this second-tier appeal only if the proposed appeal involved an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. No such point or reason existed.
2. Disclosure during a pending appeal. Lord Justice Rix agreed with Judge Taylor that only the Court of Appeal could order disclosure while the substantive appeal remained pending. The requested documents could have been obtained earlier, so the application was too late at the appellate stage. In any event, the documents were irrelevant to the proceedings.
3. Documents sought from solicitors. Most of the requested disclosure concerned the applicant’s former solicitors or the respondent’s solicitors. Allegations of collusion, misleading the court or failure to follow instructions were irrelevant to the proceedings against the university, which had already ended with the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
4. Costs and order. The costs orders made below followed from the unsuccessful disclosure application and appeal. They could not be altered on this application. Permission to appeal was refused, with the costs orders standing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1652, Lord Justice Rix refused permission for a second-tier appeal.
• Leeds County Court: His Honour Judge Taylor dismissed the appeal from the disclosure decision.
• Leeds County Court: District Judge Atherton refused disclosure as irrelevant and unnecessary.