Croydon Peoples Housing Association v Pilgrim

On an application for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal does not rehear the case or reconsider findings of fact. Its function is to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for challenging the trial decision on the evidence heard below. Fresh evidence is admitted only where it could not reasonably have been obtained for the trial, is apparently credible, and would probably have an important influence on the result. Evidence of later improvement or ongoing complaints will not justify admission where it cannot materially affect the appeal. Permission may be refused where there is no real prospect of success.

The respondent housing association obtained a possession order against the applicant from His Honour Judge Coningsby on 9 January 2001. The applicant, acting in person, applied for permission to appeal, an extension of time, and permission to adduce evidence that was not before the trial judge.

The further material concerned the applicant’s health, complaints about police and solicitors, later relations with neighbours, alleged racial abuse and a subsequent incident. The housing association did not oppose an extension of time but opposed admission of the evidence and submitted that the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success. The central issues were whether the further evidence should be admitted and whether there were reasonable grounds for challenging the possession order.

1. Applications refused. The application to adduce further evidence and the application for permission to appeal were refused. There was no order as to costs.
2. Under rule 52.11.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, fresh evidence sought to be introduced on appeal must normally be evidence which could not have been obtained by reasonable efforts for use at trial. It must be apparently credible and, if admitted, must probably have an important influence on the result.
3. The evidence concerning the applicant’s health and complaints was credible, and some evidence related to events after the possession order. Nevertheless, it could not have an important influence on the result of the appeal. The trial judge had given a detailed judgment based on the evidence heard, and the possession order was difficult to challenge on appeal.
4. An appeal is not a re-trial. The Court of Appeal does not reconsider the case on the old evidence or admit new evidence merely because it is relevant or credible. Its function is to determine whether the trial was fair and produced the correct conclusion on proper grounds.
5. The applicant’s submissions concerning unfairness, a possible breach of Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights, and the effect of the new material were rejected. There was no real prospect of showing that the judge was wrong to make the possession order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The court considered an application for permission to appeal from the possession order made by His Honour Judge Coningsby on 9 January 2001. It refused permission, refused admission of further evidence, and made no order as to costs. [2001] EWCA Civ 1688