F-K (A Child), Re

An extension of time to pursue an appeal may be refused where the appellant has delayed substantially, the subject matter concerns a child’s continuing education, and the child’s circumstances have moved on during the delay. An appeal concerned with the exercise of discretion, rather than a question of principle, provides a weak basis for appellate intervention. Where the matter is evolving and time-sensitive, it is generally better dealt with in the trial court.

The applicant, ST, and the child’s father were involved in a long-running dispute about the child’s education. On 21 July 2000, the Canterbury County Court ordered ST to enrol the child in full-time education from September. On 4 September, the judge granted permission to appeal and stayed the order for 14 days, continuing the stay only if the appeal was pursued timeously. The notice of appeal was not received until 27 November, so ST applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time.

In December 2000, the county court held that the stay had ceased to operate and considered arrangements for the child’s education. The central issue was whether an extension should be granted despite the delay and the changing circumstances.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Thorpe dismissed the application for an extension of time.
2. The order appealed against was essentially an exercise of judicial discretion rather than a decision on a question of principle. The applicant had therefore been fortunate to obtain permission to appeal, and the delay meant that the permission and stay had not been pursued timeously.
3. The Court accepted as correct the later county court conclusion that the stay was no longer operative because of the failure to pursue the appeal promptly. The conditional nature of the stay did not preserve it after that failure.
4. It was inappropriate to introduce the case to appellate review approximately six months after the original order. The child’s life was continuing to develop, and the opportunity for secondary education was rapidly diminishing. Those practical and welfare-related issues were better addressed by the trial court, where the child’s current circumstances could be considered.
5. The Court expressed substantial doubt whether permission to appeal had been properly granted, but the application could be resolved on the delay, the nature of the order, and the need to leave the evolving educational issues to the trial court.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for an extension of time to appeal was refused.
• Canterbury County Court: On 21 July 2000, His Honour Judge Peppitt QC ordered full-time school enrolment, granted permission to appeal, and imposed a conditional stay. On 14 December 2000, His Honour Judge Poulton held that the stay was no longer operative because the appeal had not been pursued timeously.