Dolan (t/a Vincent & Sons) v Al-Timimi

Permission for a second-tier appeal requires an important point of principle or a compelling reason. The brevity of a lower-court hearing does not, by itself, establish procedural unfairness. Judges are expected to read the papers and may adopt a robust approach. Where serious allegations about a judge’s conduct are supported only by conflicting recollections, and there is no transcript or affidavit, fairness may require evidence from the applicant and an opportunity for the judge and opposing party to respond before permission is decided. The application was therefore adjourned for that evidence, without any indication that permission was likely to be granted.

The applicant sought permission for a second-tier appeal, together with an extension of time, from a decision of His Honour Judge Krikler dated 26 September 2000. Judge Krikler had dismissed the applicant’s appeal from District Judge Morris’s decision of 7 August 2000. The underlying dispute concerned payment for central-heating work. The application focused on allegations that the hearing before Judge Krikler had been racist and had not been a proper appeal hearing. The central issue was whether those allegations could fairly be determined on the material available.

Decision

1. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned. The court made no determination that permission should be granted, and the applicant’s prospects were described as far from conclusive.
2. A second-tier appeal requires permission. The applicant is not entitled to proceed unless the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or there is a compelling reason for a further appeal.
3. The short duration of the hearing before Judge Krikler did not itself establish unfairness. A judge may read the papers in advance, form a provisional view, explain the likely outcome, and take a robust approach with litigants.
4. Serious allegations about the conduct of the hearing required proper evidence before they could fairly be determined. The material consisted of the applicant’s letter, the claimant’s differing recollection, and no transcript. The court therefore required an affidavit from the applicant describing what occurred from the calling-on of the case until its conclusion.
5. The affidavit was to be served on the court within seven days, by 4 pm. It was to be disclosed to Judge Krikler and the clerk of the Willesden court, and to the claimant, who could provide an affidavit in response. The application would then be re-listed. If the affidavit was not served by the deadline, the application would stand dismissed. The matter was not reserved to Lord Justice Judge.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 26 April 2001, the application for permission to appeal and extension of time was adjourned pending further evidence concerning the conduct of the hearing before Judge Krikler.
2. His Honour Judge Krikler: On 26 September 2000, dismissed the applicant’s appeal from District Judge Morris.
3. District Judge Morris: On 7 August 2000, reached a decision favourable to the claimant and adverse to the applicant in the underlying dispute.