Re: M (A Child)

A renewed application for permission to appeal an interlocutory directions order may lose all practical force when the final hearing has taken place and judgment has been delivered before the application is determined. The Court of Appeal may then dismiss it as overtaken by events. The trial judge’s control over interlocutory directions is particularly extensive, and permission requires realistic prospects of success. The court may also direct that the application cannot be reinstated where continuation would offer no benefit and would waste judicial time.

Mr W, acting in person, renewed an application for permission to appeal an interlocutory directions order made by His Honour Judge Kamil in the Leeds County Court on 3 April 2001. Permission had been refused on paper on 24 April because the order prepared a forthcoming final hearing, the trial judge’s control was extensive, and there were no realistic prospects of success. Before the renewal was determined, the five-day final hearing took place on 30 April and judgment was delivered on 3 May. The central issue was whether the renewed application retained any force or relevance.

Lord Justice Thorpe dismissed the renewed application in Mr W’s absence and refused permission to appeal.

1. The application concerned an interlocutory directions order made in preparation for a final hearing. At that stage, the trial judge’s control over directions was particularly extensive. The earlier paper refusal had also concluded that there were no realistic prospects of success.
2. By the time the renewal came before the Court of Appeal, the final hearing had taken place and judgment had been delivered. The application had therefore been overtaken by events. It had no continuing force or relevance and could provide no practical benefit to the applicant.
3. The court also took account of Mr W’s history of repeated applications for permission, together with his abusive telephone conduct towards the listing officer. These circumstances reinforced the conclusion that the application was wholly without merit and that its listing wasted judicial time.
4. The court directed that Mr W was not permitted to reinstate the application. It was dismissed in his absence, and permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 11 May 2001, Lord Justice Thorpe refused permission to appeal, dismissed the renewed application in the applicant’s absence, and directed that it could not be reinstated: [2001] EWCA Civ 798.
2. Leeds County Court — His Honour Judge Kamil made the interlocutory directions order on 3 April 2001. Permission was refused on paper on 24 April. The final hearing took place on 30 April, followed by judgment on 3 May.