Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, fresh supplementary argument may justify permission on a narrower and more tenable basis than the original grounds. Permission may be confined to specified grounds, with other grounds excluded except to the extent that they overlap. Time for appealing may be enlarged where the grounds for enlargement are meritorious. Execution of an injunction may be stayed pending the appeal where a stay is appropriate. Formal liberty to apply need not be granted where it could encourage repeated applications, although the parties may return to court if circumstances materially change.

Wrexham County Borough Council made a renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, which had resulted in an injunction. The application relied on a fresh supplementary skeleton argument and included four proposed grounds of appeal. The court was asked to determine whether permission should be granted, whether time should be enlarged, and whether execution of the injunction should be stayed pending the appeal.

Lord Justice Sedley allowed the renewed application and made consequential procedural orders.

1. The fresh supplementary skeleton argument placed the proposed appeal on a different and more tenable footing. Permission to appeal was therefore granted on grounds 3 and 4 of the draft notice of appeal.
2. Grounds 1 and 2 were not to be addressed, except insofar as elements of ground 1 plainly appeared within ground 4 and were open to argument under that permitted ground.
3. Time was enlarged because the grounds relied upon for enlargement were meritorious.
4. Execution of the injunction was stayed pending disposal of the appeal. The respondent’s acceptance that a stay would not be inappropriate supported that order.
5. Formal liberty to apply was refused. Such an order might encourage a further application concerning the same matter. If circumstances changed, the parties remained entitled to return to court.

The order was: application allowed; costs to be costs in the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On a renewed application arising from the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division decision, permission to appeal was granted on grounds 3 and 4, time was enlarged, and execution of the injunction was stayed pending the appeal.