Barnes v Uttlesford District Council

An adjournment will not ordinarily be granted on medical grounds where the evidence records only that a party feels unable to attend and does not state that the party is medically unfit. An application to reopen an earlier decision requires more than repeating arguments that could have been made at the original hearing; ordinarily, striking new evidence is needed. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil appeal from a High Court decision under section 28A of the Supreme Court Act 1981, because section 28A(4) makes that decision final, subject to the statutory exception for criminal appeals.

The applicant complained about the distress of his BMW car for non-payment of council tax. On a case stated by magistrates, Laws J held on 4 July 1997 that the car was not protected because the applicant was not entitled to use it in his trade: it was unlicensed and such use would have been criminal.

The applicant pursued separate criminal and civil applications in the Court of Appeal. On 8 February 2001, the criminal application was dismissed and permission to appeal in the civil matter was refused, relying on section 28A(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Master Venne later refused an application to reinstate the civil case. The applicant sought permission to appeal against that refusal, alleging inadequate notice and procedural unfairness, and sought an adjournment.

1. Adjournment. The application for an adjournment was refused. The doctor’s letter recorded that the applicant felt unable to attend and prescribed treatment, but did not state that he was medically unfit to attend court. His ability to travel to the doctor’s surgery also weakened the asserted basis for adjournment. A separate request based on being occupied with another hearing provided no proper basis.
2. Reopening the earlier decision. The applicant’s complaint that he had not been prepared for the civil matter had been, or should have been, raised before the full court on 8 February 2001. The matter was essentially the same dispute, although characterised differently for the criminal and civil applications. The refusal of an adjournment involved no improper exercise of discretion. In the absence of striking new evidence unavailable at the earlier hearing, there was no basis for reopening the matter.
3. Jurisdiction. Section 28A(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 was an insuperable barrier to any civil appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court’s decision on a case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. The earlier refusal of permission was therefore plainly right and inevitable.
4. The application to overturn Master Venne’s order was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 3 May 2001, Keene LJ dismissed the application to overturn Master Venne’s order and made no order as to costs.
• Master Venne: On 15 February 2001, the application to reinstate the civil case was refused.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 8 February 2001, the criminal application was dismissed and permission to appeal in the civil matter was refused because section 28A(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 prevented a further civil appeal.
• Laws J: On 4 July 1997, on a case stated by magistrates, he held that the applicant’s unlicensed BMW was not protected from distress because its proposed use in the applicant’s trade would have been criminal.