Swindells & Anor v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

[2001] EWCA Civ 948

Case details

Case citations
[2001] EWCA Civ 948
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
13 June 2001
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Permission to appeal Strike out
Keywords
permission to appeal section 55 Access to Justice Act 1999 important point of principle or practice compelling reason strike out medical evidence wrongful imprisonment police assault
Outcome
application for permission to appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Permission to appeal under Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55, is available only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The threshold was not met. The applicants also lacked the medical evidence required by an earlier order, and the material produced did not link their alleged injuries to the incident relied upon. Permission was therefore refused.

Factual background

The applicants sought permission to appeal against an order of McCombe J dated 6 February 2001, which confirmed the striking-out order made by His Honour Judge Gibbs on 8 November 2000. Their claim concerned alleged wrongful imprisonment and assaults by police in 1996. Master Hodgson had earlier ordered particulars of claim and medical evidence for any personal-injury claim. The central issue was whether the statutory threshold for permission to appeal was satisfied.

Held

Carnwath J, sitting in the Court of Appeal, dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

  1. Under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
  2. The proposed appeal involved no point of principle and disclosed no other compelling reason. The statutory threshold was therefore not met.
  3. Independently, the applicants had not complied with Master Hodgson’s order requiring medical evidence to accompany particulars relating to personal injuries. The material supplied consisted essentially of an earlier medical note, a prescription, and a later letter referring to pain and other complaints. It did not establish a link between the alleged injuries and the 1996 incident, particularly in light of the applicants’ previous medical complaints.
  4. Although the court expressed sympathy for the applicant’s position, it had no power to grant permission in the circumstances. Application for permission to appeal dismissed.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 13 June 2001, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed: [2001] EWCA Civ 948.
  • High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: McCombe J’s order of 6 February 2001 rejected the applicants’ challenge and confirmed the striking-out order.
  • Earlier procedural order: His Honour Judge Gibbs struck out the claim on 8 November 2000. Master Hodgson had ordered service of particulars and supporting medical evidence on 23 June 2000.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application for permission to appeal dismissed

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.