Riley & Anor v Jack

A permission application should be refused where the transcript and judgment disclose no irregularity or error in the order under challenge. Matters arising from separate disputes cannot found an appeal unless they bear on that order. An undisputed amount admitted as received may be assessed as damages on a counterclaim, and an accepted costs assessment will not ordinarily support an appeal where the record discloses no error.

The applicants brought proceedings against the respondent, who counterclaimed for money allegedly paid to them. Their defence to the counterclaim had been struck out for failure to comply with an order concerning the late filing of witness statements. At a later hearing, the county court assessed the counterclaim, dealt with an agreed undertaking and interest, and assessed costs at £250.

The applicants sought permission to appeal, alleging injustice and referring to continuing disputes involving the press and police. The central issue was whether the proceedings disclosed any irregularity or error in the orders challenged.

1. Application refused. The transcript of the hearing and the judge’s short judgment disclosed no irregularity or error.
2. The defence to the counterclaim had been struck out because the applicants failed to comply with the order of 10 August 1999 requiring witness statements, which were already very late. That procedural history disclosed no basis for permission to appeal.
3. At the subsequent hearing, judgment had been entered for the respondent on the counterclaim. The applicants accepted receipt of the £5,000 claimed, so liability could not be disputed and the judge properly treated the issue as one of assessment. There was no room for dispute about the amount and damages were assessed at £5,000.
4. An undertaking concerning another aspect of the claim was agreed. Interest was claimed from 19 June 1995 to 3 November 1999 at 8 per cent, producing £1,749.04, and the applicants indicated that interest was acceptable if costs were ordered.
5. The judge’s approach to costs was favourable to the applicants. Counsel could not provide proper information for a detailed assessment, so the judge assessed costs at £250, a figure the applicants accepted. The transcript showed no error in that course.
6. Continuing disputes involving the press and police did not bear on the application before the court and could not justify permission to appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused. The court held that the record disclosed no irregularity or error and that unrelated disputes were irrelevant. The decision is reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 293.
2. Romford County Court: The applicants’ defence to counterclaim was struck out on 6 October 1999 for failure to comply with an order concerning witness statements. On 3 November 1999, His Honour Judge Paynter Reece assessed the counterclaim at £5,000 and costs at £250.