Knight v Sage Group Plc

For a second-tier appeal, permission requires an issue of practice or principle of general importance, or another special reason. The Court of Appeal may consider the whole procedural history and refuse permission where the proposed appeal has no realistic prospect of success. Case-management decisions on adjournments and compliance with time-limited orders are discretionary. A prior order allowing further medical evidence does not prevent a later strike-out for failure to comply with that order. An order deferring an adjournment request to the trial as a preliminary issue does not finally determine the request or the admissibility issue.

The applicant brought two proceedings against her former employer. The contract claim concerned payments said to be due under an insurance scheme. The personal injury claim concerned stress and depressive illness allegedly caused by employment conditions.

In the contract action, Judge Taylor declined to vacate the imminent trial date and deferred the adjournment application to the trial as a preliminary issue. The claim was later dismissed after the applicant failed to attend. In the personal injury action, District Judge Howard struck out the claim for failure to comply with a time-limited order requiring medical evidence, and Judge Walton upheld that decision.

The Court of Appeal considered whether either application disclosed a sufficient basis for a second-tier appeal.

Disposition

Lord Justice Sedley delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Tuckey agreeing. Both applications for permission to appeal were refused.

1. Contract claim. The Court rejected the contention that Judge Taylor had prejudged the case. His order had not finally determined either the request to adjourn the trial or the admissibility of Dr Lipsedge’s report. Both matters had been left for consideration at the trial as a preliminary issue. The Court also considered that the delay was already excessive and that an adjournment offered no realistic prospect of improving the applicant’s position or the litigation.
2. Personal injury claim. This was a second-tier appeal. The applicant therefore had to demonstrate an issue of practice or principle of general importance, or some other special reason. The strike-out followed non-compliance with the Court of Appeal’s earlier order allowing three months to serve the medical evidence needed to constitute the claim properly. That permission did not remove the obligation to comply with the order. The applicant still lacked the necessary evidence, and no issue of general importance or special reason was shown. The case-management decision was therefore not an arguable basis for permission.
3. Related proceedings. The associated judicial review proceedings had either failed or lapsed after non-compliance with a condition requiring proper bundles. Given the passage of time, they offered no feasible prospect of unravelling the position or reviving either action.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 March 2001, permission to appeal was refused in both applications.
• Contract claim: Judge Taylor declined on 30 October 2000 to vacate the trial date and deferred the adjournment application to the trial. After the applicant failed to attend, the claim was dismissed.
• Personal injury claim: District Judge Howard struck out the claim for non-compliance with a time-limited order. Judge Walton dismissed the appeal on 18 February 2000. An earlier application for permission was refused on the papers, but the Court considered the arguments afresh.