C (A Child)

A renewed application for permission to appeal may properly be adjourned for oral consideration where further argument warrants review by a differently constituted court, even though permission was initially refused on paper.

A stay of execution should be refused where delay would deprive a child of arrangements already sanctioned by the court, cause substantial waste of public funds, and postpone any substantive appeal for months. The court must give practical weight to the child’s immediate welfare and the consequences of maintaining an ineffective arrangement.

The President of the Family Division ordered that C be immediately admitted to a school outside Appleby in public law proceedings brought by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. The mother opposed the move and advanced human rights arguments. The President refused permission to appeal and granted only a short stay. The mother renewed both applications before the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether permission should be reconsidered at an oral hearing and whether the President’s order should remain stayed pending that hearing.

Lord Justice Thorpe:

1. The President had reached a clear conclusion that C should immediately attend the school outside Appleby. Her findings of fact were clear, and she had comprehensively reviewed the relevant human rights authority. Those features justified the provisional refusal of permission and the refusal to extend the stay on the papers.
2. After hearing the mother’s submissions, the Court of Appeal did not finally confirm the refusal of permission. The application was adjourned for a further oral hearing without notice before two or three judges, depending on practical arrangements and judicial availability. The further hearing was necessary because oral argument had raised sufficient grounds for another judge of the court to consider the application.
3. The application for a further stay was refused. C had a guaranteed place at the Appleby school because the local authority had been paying fees in advance. Continued delay would waste public funds and prevent C from benefiting from arrangements already approved by the President. Any substantive appeal would in any event be likely to face an interim delay of months because of the long vacation and listing difficulties.
4. The President’s order was therefore not further stayed, and C was to start at Eden Grove while the future role of the Court of Appeal was clarified.

Orders: application for permission to appeal adjourned; application for a stay of execution refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On renewal, the application for permission to appeal was adjourned for a further oral hearing. The application for a stay of execution was refused.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: The President ordered C’s immediate admission to a school outside Appleby, refused permission to appeal, and granted only a 36-hour stay.