Solon CHS Ltd v Smolen

On a second-tier application for permission to appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. A disagreement with factual and procedural conclusions already reached below does not satisfy that threshold. Where correspondence plainly concerns an inter partes costs assessment rather than a separate legal-aid assessment, an alleged interference with the latter provides no sufficient basis for a further appeal. A short delay may not itself defeat a meritorious application for an extension of time, but an extension may be refused where the proposed appeal has no merit.

The proceedings arose from interlocutory costs orders made in a long-running dispute between Solon CHS Ltd and Mr Smolen. Two costs assessments were being conducted: one concerning Mr Smolen’s legal-aid costs and another concerning Solon’s inter partes costs.

Solon’s solicitors applied to adjourn an assessment hearing. Mr Smolen contended that they had no standing because the hearing concerned only his legal-aid costs, and sought an earlier hearing. District Judge Ryan dismissed his application, and Mr Recorder Hamlin dismissed his appeal on 2 April 2001. Mr Smolen sought second-tier permission to appeal, together with an extension of time.

The central issues were whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason, and whether time should be extended.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Rix, held that this was a second-tier application. Permission could therefore be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was another compelling reason.
2. Mr Smolen’s complaint was that Solon’s solicitors had deliberately interfered with his legal-aid position. That submission had already been made to, and rejected by, both the district judge and the recorder. The solicitors’ letter of 16 November 2000 plainly concerned the assessment of Solon’s inter partes costs, not Mr Smolen’s separate legal-aid costs. The proposed appeal consequently disclosed no important point of principle, no compelling reason, and no arguable basis for further permission.
3. Mr Smolen also required a two-day extension of time. Lord Justice Rix stated that, if the application had possessed merit, the short delay would not have justified refusal on that ground alone. Since the application had no possible merit, the court declined to extend time.

Application refused. No order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Second-tier application for permission to appeal refused; extension of time also refused, with no order for costs.
2. Shorditch County Court: Mr Recorder Hamlin dismissed Mr Smolen’s appeal on 2 April 2001 and made no further costs order because Solon did not appear.
3. District Judge: District Judge Ryan dismissed Mr Smolen’s application on 15 January 2001 and ordered him to pay £100 costs. District Judge Wright had earlier granted an adjournment at an ex parte hearing on 17 November 2000.