Heath Giles & Co (a firm) v Thorogood & Anor

Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 creates a mandatory bar against appealing a decision granting or refusing permission to appeal. The appellate court has no discretion to entertain an application caught by that prohibition. The provision does not remove any right under the court rules to make a further application for permission to the same or another court. Even without the statutory bar, an applicant would need to show an error of law or principle, or that the decision was manifestly wrong.

Heath Giles & Co had obtained a charging order against Edith and Robert Thorogood. On 26 July 2001, His Honour Judge Hargrove QC refused Mr Thorogood’s application to appeal the order of District Judge Smith, added the costs to the judgment debt, restricted further applications without leave, and refused leave to appeal his own order.

Mr Thorogood then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 prevented an appeal against the refusal of permission.

1. Statutory prohibition. Lord Justice Thorpe held that section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 plainly prevents an appeal against a court’s decision under that section to grant or refuse permission to appeal. The present application fell within that prohibition.
2. No residual discretion. The statutory language was mandatory. Although the result might appear harsh to the applicant, the Court of Appeal had no discretion to override the prohibition. The legislation formed part of a wider reform intended to restrict civil appellate rights, inhibit multiple appeals, and confine appeals where appropriate to inferior courts. The subsection preserved any right under the court rules to make a further application for permission to the same or another court.
3. Alternative observation. Lord Justice Thorpe stated that, even without the statutory prohibition, Mr Thorogood would have faced difficulty establishing an error of law or principle in Judge Hargrove’s decision, or showing that its conclusion was manifestly wrong. This was not necessary to the disposition.
4. Order. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed: [2001] EWCA Civ 1914.

• District Judge Smith: On 27 July 1999, a charging order nisi was made absolute.
• Tunbridge Wells County Court: On 26 July 2001, His Honour Judge Hargrove QC refused permission to appeal District Judge Smith’s order and refused permission to appeal his own order.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mr Thorogood’s application, filed on 3 August 2001, was dismissed because section 54(4) barred the appeal. [2001] EWCA Civ 1914.