London Borough Of Islington v Matin

A refusal of permission to appeal is not itself appealable where Access to Justice Act 1999, section 54(4), removes the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction. The Court must therefore refuse permission in respect of a purported appeal from such a refusal.

Proceedings by a local authority against Mr Matin began in the Clerkenwell County Court and were case-managed by a district judge and a circuit judge. Mr Matin sought permission from Neuberger J to appeal an order of the circuit judge. Neuberger J refused permission on 10 July 2001.

Mr Matin then sought to challenge that refusal in the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain a purported appeal from a refusal of permission to appeal.

1. Permission to appeal was refused. Latham LJ held that section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 deprived the Court of Appeal of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from Neuberger J’s refusal of permission to appeal. Master Joseph had therefore been correct to conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction.
2. The absence of jurisdiction did not produce injustice on the facts. Although there had been maladministration concerning the administrative dismissal of Mr Matin’s counterclaim, he had obtained permission in subsequent proceedings to amend his claim so as to advance the same allegations. He remained able to litigate them if they had merit.
3. Latham LJ added that, even if jurisdiction had existed, the appeal could not have succeeded. The reasons given by Neuberger J for refusing permission supported that conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused because the court lacked jurisdiction under section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Neuberger J refused permission on 10 July 2001 to appeal the order of His Honour Judge Reynolds.
• Clerkenwell County Court: the underlying proceedings were case-managed by District Judge Jones and subsequently by His Honour Judge Reynolds.