Wood v De Souza

Where a litigant seeks permission to appeal from a refusal of permission to appeal, section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act removes the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on substantive issues. Permission is also refused where the lower courts’ decision was plainly correct and the proposed appeal has no merit. Challenges to costs and refusal to stay a possession warrant fail where no proper ground is shown.

A district judge ordered the defendant to give up possession of an annex in which she had lived with the claimant’s son. She claimed that work she had carried out at the premises and her relationship with the son gave her a right to remain. The district judge treated her as a licensee whose licence had been determined.

A circuit judge refused permission to appeal, awarded costs and declined to stay the warrant for possession. The defendant then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal from that refusal. The central issues were the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction under section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the challenges to costs and the stay.

Lord Justice Latham refused the applications.

1. Substantive issue. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act precluded an appeal on substantive issues from a refusal of permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal therefore had no jurisdiction to grant permission in relation to the possession order.
2. Merits. In any event, permission would not have been granted. On the information before the court, the district judge’s conclusion that the defendant was a mere licensee, and that the licence had been determined, was inevitable. The resulting possession order was likewise inevitable. The circuit judge was therefore correct to refuse permission.
3. Costs and possession warrant. There was no possible ground for challenging the circuit judge’s award of costs. There was also no ground for staying the warrant for possession.

The applications were refused. There was no order for costs. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 5 February 2001, Lord Justice Latham refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal from the circuit judge’s refusal of permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal also made no order for costs and refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords: [2001] EWCA Civ 181.
• Brentford County Court — District Judge Plaskow made a possession order on 9 June 2000. On 28 July 2000, His Honour Judge Edwards refused permission to appeal, awarded costs and declined to stay the warrant for possession.