Deansgate Insurance Services v Khan

Permission for a second appeal is available only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is some other compelling reason to hear it. The Court of Appeal may proceed in the applicant’s absence where the applicant has been accommodated on listing and gives no proper basis for an adjournment. Grounds that merely assert factual errors, repeat pleadings, or allege procedural misconduct without identifying an arguable error do not meet the threshold. Where the lower decisions are reasonable and sustainable in law, permission should be refused.

The claimant, an insurance broker, claimed £60.48 from the defendant for an additional motor insurance premium. The defendant counterclaimed damages for a period without insurance and increased premiums after changing insurers.

On 13 November 1998, Deputy District Judge Coffey dismissed both the claim and counterclaim. On 17 January 2000, His Honour Judge Tetlow dismissed the defendant’s appeal, finding no misconduct or error of law. The defendant then applied for permission to bring a second appeal, raising alleged factual errors, missing papers and failures to recognise points of law. The central issue was whether the application satisfied the second-appeal threshold.

1. Application dismissed. The application was for permission to bring a second appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Tetlow.
2. Lord Justice May proceeded despite the defendant’s absence. The defendant had requested an afternoon hearing, that request had been accommodated, and his later letter merely referred to a clash with a local court appointment without providing details. It gave no proper basis for postponing the application.
3. The application was governed by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, with equivalent provisions in rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
4. The papers did not disclose every factual detail, but they permitted a clear conclusion. Deputy District Judge Coffey had dismissed the claim for the additional premium because the defendant was ultimately found not to have been at fault, or because the sum was repayable under the claimant’s undertaking. He dismissed the counterclaim because, when the premium was demanded and the no-claims information withheld, the defendant’s lack of fault had not been established or known. His Honour Judge Tetlow regarded that as a proper basis for dismissal and found no misconduct or error of law.
5. The proposed grounds did not identify any proper reason why either decision was wrong. They therefore disclosed neither an important point of principle or practice nor another compelling reason. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 25 January 2001, Lord Justice May dismissed the defendant’s application for permission to bring a second appeal: [2001] EWCA Civ 85.
2. Manchester County Court: On 17 January 2000, His Honour Judge Tetlow dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the deputy district judge’s order, finding no misconduct or error of law.
3. Manchester County Court: On 13 November 1998, Deputy District Judge Coffey dismissed both the claimant’s claim and the defendant’s counterclaim.