Matin v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

Permission for a second appeal requires reasonable grounds of success and an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case.

A significant claim involving police powers is not thereby unsuitable for trial in the county court. The applicant must show that the case is so special that it can sensibly be dealt with only in the High Court. An issue under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that turns on the facts of one case is unlikely to provide general guidance or constitute a compelling reason for a second appeal.

The claimant sought damages after police officers entered his home without a warrant and removed his children. The police relied on section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Master Tenant allocated the action to the multi-track and ordered its transfer to the Central London County Court. He later refused to set aside that order. Forbes J dismissed the claimant’s appeal on 19 July 2001. The claimant sought permission for a second appeal, arguing that Article 75 of the High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991 required the claim to remain in the High Court and that the issues concerning police powers were of general public importance.

1. Disposition and applicable test. Lord Justice Latham, with whom Lord Justice Kay agreed, refused permission for a second appeal. The applicant had to establish reasonable grounds for success and also an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal.
2. Allocation between courts. The fact that a claim against the police raises a significant issue does not make the county court an inappropriate forum. Article 75 of the High Court and County Court Jurisdiction Order 1991 did not justify treating claims against the police as matters that must remain in the High Court. The applicant had to show that the case was so special that it could sensibly be dealt with only in the High Court.
3. The decision to allocate the action to the multi-track and transfer it to the county court was a case-management decision. The possibility that another master or judge might have exercised the discretion differently was insufficient to justify appellate intervention.
4. Public importance. Lord Justice Kay observed that section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives a right to enter premises where there is a genuine and reasonable belief that children are at risk of serious harm. Whether the police could reasonably have held that belief would turn on the facts of this case. Its resolution was therefore unlikely to produce general guidance for other cases or provide a compelling reason for a second appeal.
5. Order. The application was dismissed. The court stated that it had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2001] EWCA Civ 1903, permission for a second appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.
2. Queen’s Bench Division — Forbes J dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the allocation and transfer decision on 19 July 2001.
3. Master Tenant — The action was allocated to the multi-track and transferred to the Central London County Court. An application to set aside that order was refused.