Gibson v Legal Aid Board

Permission for a second appeal requires either an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason. The court may nevertheless dismiss an application where the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. Even assuming that a legal aid authority owed a duty of care, permission was unavailable where no breach was reasonably arguable and the alleged loss could not be shown to flow from the authority’s conduct.

The claimant brought county court proceedings for damages after a road traffic accident in which his legal aid certificate had been discharged. He alleged that the discharge caused him to settle the underlying action for less than he otherwise would have received.

The county court struck out the first claim, dismissed an appeal, struck out a second claim as repetitive and abusive, and later struck out a third claim. An appeal against the third strike-out was dismissed. The claimant sought permission to appeal and extensions of time. Laws LJ dismissed the applications in his absence. Keene LJ considered the application afresh because of a medical certificate, but the claimant again did not attend. The central issues were whether the application should be reinstated and whether the proposed appeals had any realistic prospect of success.

Application dismissed. Keene LJ was prepared, in the interests of justice, to reconsider the claimant’s application for permission to appeal and the necessary extension of time. As the claimant and any representative were absent, the matter was determined on the papers.

1. Three of the four proposed appeals were second appeals. Under Civil Procedure Rules part 52.13, permission could be granted only if the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. Independently of that restriction, the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success. It was difficult to see that the Legal Aid Board had breached any duty of care, even assuming that such a duty existed in the circumstances.
3. There was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the alleged loss flowed from any breach by the Board. The county court decisions had attributed the loss to the claimant’s solicitors’ failures, and the proposed appeals disclosed no viable cause of action against the Board.
4. Keene LJ agreed on the merits with the view succinctly expressed by Laws LJ. The application for reinstatement was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Laws LJ dismissed the claimant’s applications for permission to appeal and extensions of time on 5 October 2000 in his absence. Keene LJ reconsidered the application but dismissed it on the papers.
• Birkenhead County Court The county court struck out the claimant’s claims, dismissed one appeal, treated a further claim as repetitive and an abuse of process, and dismissed the appeal against the later strike-out.