Noel v Rowland

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. A litigant who, after disclosure of a judge’s previous involvement in an investigation, confirms that there is no objection to that judge hearing the matter cannot ordinarily challenge the decision on that basis.

Personal grievances concerning institutional conduct do not establish a personal claim against an office-holder. A viable claim requires a recognised cause of action against that individual, supported by evidence of personal responsibility, a relevant personal representation or contractual relationship, and the necessary connection to the alleged loss.

Mrs Sally Noel sought permission to appeal, together with an extension of time, from a judgment of Mr Justice Tomlinson dated 17 November 2000. Her proposed appeal concerned claims against Sir David Rowland, formerly a member and Chairman of Lloyd’s, arising from her experience as a Lloyd’s member and from the reconstruction and renewal exercise.

She also argued that she would not have accepted Mr Justice Tomlinson as judge had she known more about his involvement with the Kerr Panel. She had been told of that involvement and had confirmed that she did not object to his hearing the matter. The central issues were whether the judge’s involvement provided a basis for appellate intervention and whether Mrs Noel had any reasonable prospect of establishing a personal cause of action against Sir David Rowland.

Application refused. Lord Justice Waller concluded that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

1. Challenge to the judge. Mr Justice Tomlinson had disclosed that he had been a member of the Kerr Panel. Mrs Noel had then confirmed that she had no objection to his hearing the case. In those circumstances, there was no realistic prospect that the Court of Appeal would reverse his decision and remit the matter for hearing by a different judge.
2. Claims against Sir David Rowland. The complaints fell into three broad areas: the circumstances in which Mrs Noel became a Lloyd’s member, the introduction of a new standard agency agreement in 1986, and the reconstruction and renewal exercise in 1996. The first complaint could not create personal responsibility on the part of Sir David Rowland. The second concerned an institutional act for which he could not personally be held responsible. In relation to the third, Mrs Noel could not demonstrate a contract with him personally, that he had acted otherwise than as Chairman of Lloyd’s, or that he had made a direct representation which caused her loss and in relation to which he had acted dishonestly.
3. Practical consequence. Sympathy for the difficulties suffered by Lloyd’s members could not justify allowing an appeal with no prospect of success. Granting permission would expose Mrs Noel to further costs without a realistic prospect of changing the result.

Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 15 May 2001, Lord Justice Waller refused the application for permission to appeal and an extension of time.
2. High Court: Mr Justice Tomlinson had given judgment on 17 November 2000.