Cornish v Hutchins

The Court of Appeal may extend time under Civil Procedure Rules Rule 3.1, even after expiry. That power remains subject to the permission threshold for a further appeal under Rule 52, paragraph 13. The proposed appeal must raise an important point of principle or practice, or there must be another compelling reason to hear it. Persistent delay and failure to comply with a clear unless order were insufficient. Litigant-in-person status and sympathy did not justify reinstating a permission application dismissed nearly three years earlier.

Mrs Cornish sought leave to reinstate her application for permission to appeal an order of Blofeld J dated 25 March 1997. Blofeld J had refused to extend time for her appeal against Master Lesley’s order of 17 January 1997, which struck out material parts of her claim concerning her neighbour’s development and planning permission. The earlier permission application was automatically dismissed in March 1998 after she failed to lodge bundles within the required period. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should exercise its procedural discretion and permit the further appeal.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to reinstate the permission application.

1. Procedural power. Rule 3.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules gave the court a wide power to extend or shorten time for compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order, even after the time had expired. That power was additional to other powers available to the court.
2. Permission threshold. Rule 52, paragraph 13 applied because the proposed appeal concerned a decision of the High Court which had itself been made on appeal from a Master. Permission could be granted only if the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
3. Application of the discretion. The proceedings had repeatedly been conducted out of time. Although Mrs Cornish was a litigant in person, the court file showed that she had been made aware of the relevant time limits. Her failure to comply with a clear unless order had caused the permission application to be automatically dismissed in 1998. No valid ground justified reinstating it nearly three years later. Her complaints concerning the planning permission, alleged fraud, costs and Convention rights did not establish the required point of principle, practice or compelling reason.
4. Order. The applications were dismissed. There was no order for costs, and a transcript was to be provided to Mrs Cornish at public expense.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The original permission application was automatically dismissed in March 1998 after failure to lodge bundles in accordance with the applicable order. The present application to reinstate it was refused on 1 May 2001.
2. Queen’s Bench Division: Blofeld J refused, on 25 March 1997, to extend time for an appeal against the Master’s order.
3. Master: On 17 January 1997, Master Lesley struck out material parts of the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.