Shahravash v Merchant Resources (UK) Ltd

For a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, an applicant must show reasonable prospects of success and, additionally, an important point of principle or practice or a compelling reason.

A dispute about factual findings, or a complaint that evidence was not given sufficient weight, will not ordinarily satisfy that threshold. In small claims, parties must present their evidence, including expert evidence, at the first hearing where they could reasonably do so. Failure to do so is not normally a compelling reason for a further appeal.

The applicant was sued in the county court for payment for roofing and drainage work. The district judge gave judgment for the claimants on 20 September 2000. The applicant maintained that the work had not been completed and relied on expert letters which, he said, had not been properly placed before the district judge.

Permission was refused by Judge Rose and, on renewal, by Judge Walker. Mr Justice Jacob subsequently considered that permission should be pursued on the basis of a possible retrial, but Mr Justice Laddie refused permission after concluding that the dispute was one for the trial judge. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proposed further appeal met the applicable permission threshold.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Waller refused permission to appeal.
2. After one appeal, the applicant had to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success and, in addition, either an important point of principle or practice or a compelling reason. The application did not raise an important point of principle or practice.
3. The applicant’s principal argument was that expert evidence, particularly a letter from an engineer, had not been properly before the district judge. The underlying dispute concerned what work had been agreed, what work had been done and whether some work had later been removed. Those were factual matters for the district judge to determine on the evidence available at the hearing.
4. In a small claims matter, it was vital that evidence be produced at the first hearing. Evidence which could have been produced before the district judge did not constitute a compelling reason for a further appeal merely because the applicant later wished to rely on it. The applicant had not shown an injustice sufficient to justify intervention by the Court of Appeal.
5. The court also explained that permission would not guarantee success and that the potential costs of a further appeal could be disproportionate to the sum in issue. The operative order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 July 2002, Lord Justice Waller refused permission to appeal.
• High Court: Mr Justice Laddie refused permission, treating the dispute as one for the judge who heard the evidence. Mr Justice Jacob had earlier considered that permission should be pursued on the basis of a possible retrial.
• County Court: The district judge gave judgment for the claimants on 20 September 2000. Judge Walker refused a renewed application for permission to appeal.