B (A Child)

After an appeal has been heard by a High Court judge, permission for a further appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. This is a high threshold. Convention rights do not by themselves remove that statutory restriction where the proceedings complied with Article 6 and there was no evidence of an Article 14 breach. Sympathy with a party involved in a difficult family dispute cannot enlarge the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

The father sought permission to appeal against an order of Wall J dated 16 July 2001. Wall J had dismissed his appeal from two contact orders made by District Judge Ashton in the Preston County Court on 25 January 2001 concerning contact with his daughter.

The father alleged professional malpractice and a discriminatory conspiracy. The Court of Appeal considered whether the statutory permission threshold was met and whether his reliance on the European Convention on Human Rights supplied a compelling reason for a further appeal.

1. Application refused. The father had already appealed to a High Court judge. A further appeal to the Court of Appeal therefore required demonstration of an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason. The threshold was described as very high.
2. Wall J’s judgment was careful and had concluded that there was no basis on which the appeal could succeed. His view was that the only realistic prospect of progress lay in recommendations which were already incorporated into the orders under challenge. The Court of Appeal found nothing in the papers indicating malpractice or otherwise disclosing an important point of principle or practice.
3. The father’s reliance on Convention rights did not overcome the statutory restriction. The Court considered that there had been full observance of his Article 6 rights and that there was no evidence of a breach of his Article 14 rights.
4. Although the court expressed sympathy for the father’s frustration, its powers were limited by section 55. Those limits required dismissal of the application.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. The court held that the statutory threshold for a further appeal was not met.
• High Court, Family Division: Wall J dismissed the father’s appeal on 16 July 2001.
• Preston County Court: District Judge Ashton made two contact orders on 25 January 2001.