Preston v Barber

A second appeal requires the Court of Appeal’s permission and may proceed only if it raises an important point of principle or practice, or if there is some other compelling reason. That statutory threshold is stringent. Case-management decisions in the small claims court, including decisions on interest and costs, attract a wide discretion. An appeal will ordinarily succeed only where the discretion was exercised unreasonably or on incorrect principles. Procedural errors occurring during transitional changes to the civil justice system do not themselves justify a second appeal where they cannot affect the substantive result.

Mr James Preston applied in person for permission to bring a second appeal against an order of Mr Justice Gibbs, which had dismissed his appeal from a decision of District Judge Gaunt in the Altrincham County Court. The county court had awarded him £25.86 against his sister, Mrs Edna Barber, but had refused interest and costs.

The dispute arose from the administration of their mother’s estate and involved extensive earlier correspondence, disclosure applications and proceedings. The claim had been allocated to the small claims track. Mr Preston challenged the handling of the case and the decisions on interest and costs. The central question was whether the proposed second appeal satisfied the statutory permission test.

1. Application refused. The proposed second appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice and disclosed no other compelling reason within section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
2. The Court acknowledged errors by the Court Service concerning the route of appeal during transitional changes to the civil justice system. Those errors were regrettable, but they could not constitute a ground of appeal capable of assisting the applicant. The position concerning appeals in small claims cases had been addressed in Tanfern Ltd v Cameron Macdonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311, particularly paragraph 24, and the rules had subsequently been changed.
3. The small claims procedure is intended to secure the speedy and summary resolution of modest disputes. Its design permits the court to restrict technical and complicated procedures so that costs remain proportionate to the amount at stake. District judges have strong case-management powers which they are required to use for that purpose.
4. District judges also have a wide discretion in relation to interest and costs. The exercise of that discretion will be interfered with only where it was unreasonable or was not based on correct principles. Although some of the applicant’s finer points may not have been fully appreciated, that possibility did not satisfy the stringent second-appeal test.
5. The order was therefore: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to bring a second appeal refused.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Mr Justice Gibbs dismissed Mr Preston’s appeal from the county court decision.
• Altrincham County Court: District Judge Gaunt awarded Mr Preston £25.86 without interest or costs.