Douce v Staffordshire County Council

Summary judgment may be appropriate without a full trial where the factual material permits determination without injustice and consistently with the overriding objective. On an application for permission to appeal, the threshold is met where there is a real prospect of persuading the appellate court that the decision below was wrong. Permission may be granted on substantive grounds while refused on complaints about inadequate reasons. Here, permission was granted on the substantive grounds, but refused on the grounds alleging insufficient reasons.

The defendant applied for permission to appeal after Miss Justice Rafferty refused to grant summary judgment. The Court of Appeal initially considered that the matter might require a full trial, but reconsidered the papers with the benefit of Mr Justice Lloyd’s view. The central questions were whether the factual material permitted summary judgment without injustice and whether the proposed grounds met the permission threshold.

The Court of Appeal allowed the application with costs, but limited permission to the substantive grounds.

1. Summary judgment. Lord Justice Latham, having reconsidered the papers with Mr Justice Lloyd, was satisfied that it was open to the judge below to conclude that summary judgment might be appropriate. The factual material was capable of enabling that course without injustice and consistently with the overriding objective.
2. Permission threshold. The court held that there was a real prospect of persuading the appellate court that the decision below was wrong. The threshold for permission to appeal was therefore satisfied in respect of the substantive criticisms of the judgment.
3. Scope of permission. Mr Justice Lloyd agreed that permission should be granted on the substantive grounds. He considered grounds 1 and 2, which alleged a failure to give sufficient reasons, did not warrant permission. Lord Justice Latham confirmed that this was also his view. Permission was accordingly granted only on grounds 3, 4 and 5.

The court determined the permission application only. It did not decide the underlying summary-judgment claim on its merits.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was allowed with costs. Permission was granted on the substantive grounds 3, 4 and 5, but refused on grounds 1 and 2 concerning allegedly insufficient reasons.
• High Court: Miss Justice Rafferty refused the defendant’s application for summary judgment.