Khan v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

On a second appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason. A party challenging allocation to the small claims track should appeal against that allocation at the time. The objection cannot normally be revived on a second appeal without an arguable procedural irregularity or error of law. A trial judge is entitled to assess witness credibility, prefer one body of evidence, and reject unproved heads of claim. Where the case raises no important point, compelling reason, serious irregularity or error of law, and has no reasonable prospect of success, permission should be refused.

The claimant was arrested on suspicion of theft and the police seized property from her home. After her acquittal, some property was returned, and she brought proceedings for the return of the goods and damages for missing or damaged items. A District Judge tried the claim in the small claims track and awarded £794.94. His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards dismissed her appeal, holding that she had shown neither a serious irregularity nor a mistake of law.

The claimant sought permission for a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the original allocation to the small claims track, the conduct of the hearing, or the District Judge’s assessment of the evidence provided a basis for permission.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Henry dismissed the application for permission to appeal. The proposed second appeal could not succeed.
2. Second-appeal threshold. Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR Part 52.13 required the Court of Appeal to refuse permission unless the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was some other compelling reason for the court to hear it. The court also considered the lesser question whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.
3. Allocation to the small claims track. If the claimant objected to the allocation, she should have appealed against the allocation order when it was made. The failure to do so did not create an irregularity in the later hearing.
4. Scope of the first appeal. The first appeal judge had correctly identified the relevant test as a serious irregularity in the court below and/or a mistake of law. The claimant raised no arguable complaint of that kind. The District Judge was entitled to prefer the police evidence on disputed matters and to reject claims relating to property belonging to the claimant’s flatmate. His assessment of whether claims were proved on the balance of probabilities disclosed no error of law.
5. Application of the threshold. The grounds, documents and submissions disclosed no important point of principle or practice, compelling reason, serious irregularity, or mistake of law. They did not even demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success. His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards was therefore right to dismiss the first appeal, and permission for the second appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 April 2001, dismissed the application for permission to bring a second appeal. [2001] EWCA Civ 544
• Brentford County Court: On 18 August 2000, His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the District Judge.
• Brentford County Court: On 2 March 2000, District Judge Plaskow awarded the claimant damages of £794.94 after allowing some claims and rejecting others as unproved.