Cameron v Royal School Hampstead

On a second appeal, permission requires the applicant to show both a real prospect of success, or another compelling reason, and an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. A case-management judge may limit oral submissions where a litigant seeks to speak at excessive length and may refuse an adjournment where no proper basis is shown. Impecuniosity does not justify withholding the successful party’s costs. A possible challenge to one taxation item does not undermine a bankruptcy order supported by other standing costs debts.

After two actions arising from the termination of her employment were struck out, Cameron became liable for several costs orders in favour of the school. A statutory demand was served, her application to set it aside failed, and a bankruptcy order was made.

Mr Justice Ferris refused an adjournment and dismissed her appeal from the bankruptcy order on 4 May 2000. Cameron applied out of time for permission to bring a second appeal, sought a further adjournment to obtain legal advice, and sought a stay of the bankruptcy advertisement. The central questions were whether the proposed appeal met the second-appeal permission requirements and whether any procedural or costs issue justified an adjournment or appeal.

Lord Justice Peter Gibson gave the judgment of the court and refused all applications.

1. Permission and delay. The proposed appeal was a second appeal. Cameron therefore had to establish a real prospect of success, or another compelling reason for hearing it, and also an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. Her one-week delay in filing the appellant’s notice was comparatively short and was not held against her if the substantive requirements were met.
2. Adjournment and case management. The judge below had a discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment. A judge applying the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is not required to allow a litigant to address the court indefinitely. The judge was entitled, in the exercise of case-management powers, to limit Cameron’s oral submissions after she had spoken for about forty minutes on the adjournment application and persisted in addressing irrelevant past history. The asserted difficulty in obtaining legal representation, illness, and other pending or proposed proceedings did not provide a compelling reason for a further adjournment.
3. Costs and taxation. Cameron had had ample opportunity to challenge the costs orders. In relation to one taxation, she had been notified of the taxation and could have used the available fourteen-day review procedure, followed where appropriate by review by the circuit judge and an appeal. Instead, she pursued other applications and later made an out-of-time application to set aside the taxation certificate. Even if that application could theoretically succeed, it could only reduce one item. The other costs debts of £1,181.46 and £176.25 remained unchallengeable, so £1,357.71 of the debt supporting the bankruptcy order stood in any event.
4. Costs and disposition. The impecuniosity of an unsuccessful litigant was no reason to refuse the successful party the costs normally following the event. The £2,000 costs order made below was a substantial reduction from the amount claimed and disclosed no realistic ground of challenge. There was no real prospect of success, no important point of principle or practice, and no other compelling reason. The adjournment application, permission to appeal, and application to stay the bankruptcy advertisement were refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 8 February 2001, Lord Justice Peter Gibson refused the application for permission to appeal out of time, the further adjournment application, and the application to stay the bankruptcy advertisement. The judgment is reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 231.
2. High Court, Chancery Division in Bankruptcy: Mr Justice Ferris refused an adjournment, dismissed Cameron’s appeal from the bankruptcy order, and ordered her to pay £2,000 costs on 4 May 2000.
3. Bankruptcy proceedings: Mr Registrar Baister made the bankruptcy order on 25 November 1999 after the statutory demand was not set aside.