Matin v Choudhury & Ors

A renewed application for permission to appeal cannot be entertained by a single judge where a Lord Justice has already considered and refused permission on the merits. The applicant cannot reopen the matter by repeating arguments previously advanced. In any event, permission should be refused where the proposed appeal discloses no error of law, raises no important point of principle or practice, and has no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant sought renewed permission to appeal from decisions made by Master Eyre and Mr Michael Kallipetis QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge. May LJ had previously considered the application on the merits and refused permission, including on the basis that the proposed appeal would be a second appeal and did not satisfy Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55, or CPR 52.13.

The claimant renewed the application before Mr Justice Bennett, relying on substantially the same matters, including the overriding objective, an alleged inability to comply with a costs condition, and Chapple v Williams and Emmett.

1. Jurisdiction. Mr Justice Bennett concluded that he had no jurisdiction to hear the renewed application. May LJ had already considered the application on its merits and refused permission. The statutory and procedural restriction on second appeals required permission to be granted only where the case raised an important point of principle or practice, or where there was another compelling reason. Those requirements were not met.
2. Merits in the alternative. Even if jurisdiction existed, the application would be refused. The arguments had already been advanced before May LJ. The earlier decisions were discretionary decisions open to the judges on the evidence. No error of law, wrong legal test, lack of impartiality, or other arguable ground of appeal was identified.
3. The overriding objective did not justify reopening the application. The claimant’s reliance on a legal aid certificate and alleged inability to pay the ordered costs did not establish that he had offered payment or intended to comply with the order. The decision referred to as Chapple v Williams and Emmett did not alter the conclusion.
4. The application was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.

1. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Decisions were made by Master Eyre and Mr Michael Kallipetis QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): May LJ refused permission to appeal on 15 January 2001 after considering the application on its merits.
3. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mr Justice Bennett refused the renewed application and dismissed it on 26 March 2001.