O (Children), Re

An application for permission to appeal or for relief from an order may be refused where the applicant does not attend to pursue it. A consent order need not be revisited or relisted where the asserted terms of the compromise are unsupported by the circumstances in which the order was made and by counsel’s understanding of the agreement.

Mr O sought permission to appeal orders made in the Guildford County Court. The first concerned refusal of an application to discharge a care order relating to J. The second concerned dismissal by consent of an application to discharge injunctions. Mr O later asserted that the compromise included settlement of a substantial damages claim, but counsel had understood the compromise differently. Mr O did not attend the Court of Appeal hearing. The issues were whether the applications should be entertained and whether the consent dismissal should be revisited or relisted.

1. Applications refused. Mr O did not appear or attend to pursue his applications. In those circumstances, and having considered the short procedural history, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applications and directed that they should not be relisted.
2. The first application concerned orders made on 29 September 1998. His Honour Judge Parry had refused an application to discharge a care order relating to J. Nearly four years later, J remained subject to the care order, was in a specialist placement and had not had direct or indirect contact with his parents for some years.
3. The second application challenged the order of 24 August 2001. His Honour Judge Bishop had considered Mr O’s application for relief from injunction orders. Mr O appeared to have agreed with the local authority’s counsel that the injunctions should remain in place, so the application was dismissed by consent.
4. Mr O subsequently claimed that the compromise included settlement of a damages claim against the local authority for more than £2 million. Counsel had not understood the agreement in that way and had not known of the damages claim or any settlement until after the consent order. After hearing representations, Judge Bishop declined to revisit the order. The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere or to relist the applications.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 31 July 2002, the applications were refused and were not to be relisted: [2002] EWCA Civ 1347.
2. Guildford County Court: On 29 September 1998, an application to discharge the care order was refused. On 24 August 2001, an application for relief from injunction orders was dismissed by consent, and the judge later declined to revisit that order.