Scott v Newton & Ors

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The compelling-reason threshold is relatively high. A fact-specific possible injustice may nevertheless satisfy it, particularly where inadequate notice of trial may have deprived a litigant in person of a fair opportunity to attend and present relevant material. Permission may be limited to a defined part of the dispute where no arguable basis exists for challenging the remainder.

The applicant’s equipment claim and the respondents’ counterclaim arose from the acquisition of restaurant premises. The claim had been allowed to proceed on payment into court and was allocated to the fast track. The applicant failed to exchange further witness statements and did not attend the trial after learning of the trial date only shortly beforehand. The District Judge dismissed the claim and gave judgment on the counterclaim. The Circuit Judge dismissed the appeal. The applicant sought permission for a second appeal, alleging unfairness arising from the refusal of an adjournment and the trial process.

1. The application did not appear to raise an important point of principle or practice. That ground for permission for a second appeal was not established.
2. The requirement of another compelling reason imposed a relatively high hurdle. However, possible injustice in a fact-specific and unusual case could potentially satisfy it.
3. The applicant was entitled to adequate notice of the trial date. The court accepted, for present purposes, that he had not received the notice sent on 10 March and had learnt of the 10 April trial only on 5 April. The Circuit Judge might not have sufficiently considered the conflict between the trial and the applicant’s previously arranged commitment to open a new restaurant. Proper notice would have allowed him to raise the conflict or rearrange the opening.
4. Because the early-April events were unclear and a potentially material document was missing, the application required further consideration with both parties present.
5. The adjournment was limited to the equipment claim. There was no basis for permission concerning the excess of the counterclaim over the claim. The application was adjourned for an inter partes hearing before a two-judge court, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission for a second appeal was adjourned for an inter partes hearing before a two-judge court. Permission was refused in relation to the excess of the counterclaim over the claim.
• Luton County Court: The Circuit Judge dismissed the appeal against refusal of an adjournment and upheld the District Judge’s conclusion.
• Luton County Court: The District Judge dismissed the equipment claim and gave judgment on the counterclaim.