Akumah v London Borough Of Hackney

On a second appeal from a county court decision made on appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice, another compelling reason, and a real prospect of success. A difficult lower appellate judgment, apparently failing to do justice to clear findings below, may provide a compelling reason. The Court of Appeal may consider strong arguable grounds at the permission stage without finally determining the merits. It was strongly arguable that an altered parking voucher was invalid, making an incorrect contravention code potentially immaterial to enforcement.

The London Borough of Hackney sought permission for a second appeal from His Honour Judge Cotran’s judgment in the Shoreditch County Court dated 29 June 2001. Judge Cotran had allowed Mr Akumah’s appeal against District Judge Wright’s dismissal of his claim.

The claim arose from the clamping and removal of Mr Akumah’s car after three parking vouchers were treated as invalid because they had allegedly been altered. The proposed appeal concerned the effect of incorrect contravention codes on the parking tickets, the enforceability of a condition requiring completion in ink, and whether the appellate judge could depart from the District Judge’s clear findings of fact. The central issue was whether the requirements for permission to bring a second appeal were satisfied.

The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal. Morland J gave the first judgment. Arden LJ agreed that the requirements for a second appeal were satisfied and that the proposed appeal had a sufficient prospect of success.

1. Permission threshold. Under rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, permission was required because the proposed appeal was from a county court decision made on appeal. Permission could be granted only if the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. Under rule 52.3(6), permission would be given only where the appeal had a real prospect of success.
3. Arguable merits. Morland J considered that there were strong grounds for arguing that the three vouchers were invalid because they had been tampered with or altered contrary to their conditions. On that provisional view, the incorrect contravention codes might be immaterial because there was no valid parking permit. The underlying legality of the clamping, towing and damages claim was not finally determined.
4. Compelling reasons. The proposed appeal raised issues affecting the operation of Hackney’s parking scheme and many permit holders. It also involved a lower appellate judgment that was difficult to follow and appeared not to have done full justice to the District Judge’s clear factual findings. Arden LJ identified the same issues, including the effect of the wrong code, the enforceability of the ink requirement and the propriety of departing from the findings below.

Permission to appeal was granted. Costs were reserved to the appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 27 November 2001, permission to appeal was granted; costs were reserved to the appeal.
2. Shoreditch County Court — His Honour Judge Cotran allowed Mr Akumah’s appeal against the District Judge’s decision on 29 June 2001.
3. Shoreditch County Court — District Judge Wright dismissed Mr Akumah’s claim on 22 February 2001.