Dracup v Dracup

An application for permission to appeal may be adjourned where the court has a strong preliminary view that the case is unsuitable for the Court of Appeal but retains a residual concern about implementation of the lower court’s order. The court may require focused submissions on implementation and the appropriate next step, while exploring mediation or a negotiated solution. A further adjournment does not determine the application. The applicant may be warned that dismissal at the next hearing could result in an order for costs.

Keith Dracup applied for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Oppenheimer in the Brentford County Court on 13 June 2001. The Court of Appeal had previously adjourned the matter while attempting to secure assistance from the Bar Pro Bono Unit. That assistance was unavailable, and the applicant appeared in person. Margaret Dracup was absent and unrepresented.

The central issue was why the county court order had not been implemented, what should happen next, and whether mediation or a negotiated improvement to the county court solution was possible.

The Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Thorpe, adjourned the application for a further hearing. The court expressed a very strong preliminary view that the matter was not properly a case for the Court of Appeal. However, a residual doubt remained because nothing appeared to have been done to implement the order made by the county court.

1. The applicant was given one final opportunity to address the court.
2. The adjourned hearing was to take place on notice to the respondent, with a time estimate of 30 minutes.
3. The submissions were to focus on how the county court order had not been implemented and what should now happen. The court would also consider whether sensible mediation was possible and whether the solution proposed by the county court could be improved by agreement.
4. The applicant was warned that, if the further opportunity resulted only in dismissal of the application for permission, he might be ordered to pay the costs of the next hearing.

The application was therefore not finally determined. A copy of the judgment was directed to be provided to the applicant out of public funds.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 12 September 2002, the application for permission to appeal was adjourned for a further hearing on notice.
2. Brentford County Court: His Honour Judge Oppenheimer made the order dated 13 June 2001 which the applicant sought to challenge.