Network Security Management Ltd v Barnes & Anor

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed appeal is plainly unarguable, the dispute concerns a small sum, and further litigation risks costs exceeding the amount at stake. The court may determine the application without an adjournment where the papers are sufficient, even though the applicants face personal difficulties. Allegations that a judge failed to read the papers or was biased through contact with a party’s representative require a proper evidential foundation. Formal or incidental contact does not, without more, justify a rehearing or permission to appeal.

The claimant sought payment of approximately £800 for examining a tape recording alleged to have been tampered with. The claim failed before a district judge and an appeal to the circuit judge did not result in a rehearing. The defendants then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. They alleged that the district judge had not read all the papers and had shown bias through contact with the claimant’s representative. Similar allegations were made against the circuit judge. The defendants also sought an adjournment because of their health and the absence of 28 days’ notice.

1. Adjournment. The application was considered on the papers. Longmore LJ refused to adjourn it despite the applicants’ personal difficulties. The proposed appeal was unarguable, the sum in dispute was small, and there was a real risk that the costs had already exceeded the amount at stake. The applicants had also indicated that, if no adjournment were granted, they wished the court to deal with the matter in their absence.
2. Alleged procedural unfairness and bias. There was no sufficient basis for challenging either decision. The allegation that the district judge had not read all the papers did not establish a ground for rehearing. The alleged contact between the circuit judge and the claimant’s representative, if it occurred, was merely formal and involved nothing capable of causing concern. The grounds of appeal therefore disclosed no arguable error or evidence of bias.
3. Other matters. The claimant’s alleged cessation of trading and diverted telephone calls might affect enforcement, but had no relevance to permission to appeal.
4. Order. The application was refused and the litigation was brought to an end. A corrected transcript of the judgment was to be sent to the applicants at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the circuit judge’s decision was refused.
• Leeds County Court: The claim had failed before the district judge. The circuit judge, His Honour Judge Grenfell, refused to order a rehearing.