Matthews v Carlisle

At the enforcement stage, a court cannot reopen the history of litigation or revisit earlier orders leading to a charging order and order for sale. Any challenge to those orders must proceed through the proper permission and appeal routes. Recusal requires more than a judge’s previous involvement in related proceedings or refusal to disclose possible private associations. There must be a proper basis for conflict or apparent inability to approach the case impartially. Permission to appeal will not be granted on speculation that procedural formalities were unmet where no supporting material is produced and there is no reason to doubt compliance with the applicable rules.

The applicant sought permission to appeal a judgment of His Honour Judge Geddes in the Worcester County Court. Judge Geddes had allowed an appeal from District Judge Singh and ordered enforcement by sale of land subject to a charging order securing solicitors’ costs and a judgment debt.

The applicant alleged excessive and fraudulent costs, procedural defects, lack of jurisdiction and unfairness. He also argued that Judge Geddes should have recused himself because he had presided over related criminal proceedings and had declined to disclose whether he was a Freemason. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable ground of appeal.

Application for permission to appeal refused.

1. The court could not reopen the entire history of the litigation or reconsider earlier orders when enforcement orders were made. Any remedy concerning those orders lay through the proper applications for permission to appeal and appeals.
2. Judge Geddes was not required to recuse himself because he had presided over the criminal trial of a person previously sued by the applicant. There was no conflict of interest and no reason to doubt that he would approach the issues with an open mind.
3. The judge’s refusal to disclose whether he was a Freemason provided no basis for recusal in the circumstances. The suggestion that the trial could not be fair, or would not appear fair to a reasonable member of the public, was rejected.
4. The applicable procedural rules included provision in Rules of the Supreme Court, scheduled to the Civil Procedure Rules, for enforcement of a charging order by sale and for the documents required before such an order could be made. The former six-month interval requirement had been revoked and not replaced.
5. The court had no reason to doubt that the required material had been filed. It would not grant permission on the speculative possibility that formalities had not been complied with, particularly where no supporting documents or information had been produced. No arguable jurisdictional, legal or procedural defect was shown.

The order was that permission to appeal was refused. The order was not to be sealed until 12 June, with liberty to the respondents to apply on 24 hours’ notice to the applicant.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the applicant’s application for permission to appeal.
• Worcester County Court: His Honour Judge Geddes allowed an appeal from District Judge Singh and ordered enforcement of the charging order by sale of the charged land.
• District Judge: ordered payment of the judgment debt and had made the charging order absolute.