Halifax Plc v Alexander

Where the Court of Appeal has already refused permission to appeal, a further application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords requires a proper legal basis. The established principles in Lane v Esdaile govern that question. Once the litigation has ended, there is no basis for introducing third-party proceedings against persons connected with an opposing party. Fresh evidence will not be admitted merely because it is tendered; the applicant must show that it is properly admissible and capable of undermining the earlier decisions. Applications unsupported by the applicant’s trustee in bankruptcy will nevertheless be considered on their merits, but will fail where no proper basis for relief is shown.

Following possession and money orders made at West London County Court in mortgage arrears proceedings, Mr Alexander and Miss Costello unsuccessfully sought further relief concerning possession of the property. The Court of Appeal had previously refused permission to appeal against the county court’s orders.

Mr Alexander, who had subsequently been made bankrupt, made three applications: permission to refer the refusal of permission to appeal to the House of Lords, permission to commence third-party proceedings against Halifax’s auditors, and permission to introduce witness evidence relating to earlier litigation involving the Bank of Cyprus. The central issues were whether any of the applications had a proper legal foundation and whether the proposed evidence could affect the earlier decisions.

1. Applications refused. The Court of Appeal held that there was no basis for granting any of Mr Alexander’s applications. There was no order for costs.
2. The earlier refusal of permission to appeal was clear. Applying the principles in Lane v Esdaile, there was no basis for permitting a further appeal to the House of Lords.
3. The litigation between Mr Alexander and Halifax was at an end. Accordingly, there was no remaining litigation in which third-party proceedings against Halifax’s registered auditors, KPMG, could properly be introduced.
4. The proposed witness statements related to earlier litigation involving the Bank of Cyprus. Nothing before the court showed that the evidence should properly be admitted or, if admitted, that it could undermine the original decisions of the West London County Court.
5. Although none of the applications was supported by Mr Alexander’s trustee in bankruptcy, the court considered them on the assumption that the trustee’s appointment imposed no inhibition. That assumption did not assist the applications.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the applications arising from the orders of His Honour Judge Compston.
• West London County Court: possession and money orders were made in November 1996; subsequent applications for further relief were dismissed on 26 February 1999.