Ritsma v Allen

An appeal from a small claims arbitration is confined to a question of law. Where conflicting evidence supports a finding that a seller was acting as a trader, choosing between the accounts is a question of fact, not law. The position may differ where no evidence supports the finding. An extension of time to appeal requires a proper and satisfactory explanation for delay. A bare assertion that the applicant took a long time to act is insufficient. Where delay remains unexplained, refusal of an extension falls within the judge’s discretion, particularly where the applicant has relevant legal experience. The renewed application was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and the delays were inadequately explained.

The claimant bought a Volvo motor car from the defendant and obtained judgment for £1,613.88 plus costs. His claim concerned repair costs and alleged that the defendant had sold the vehicle as a motor trader. The defendant sought to appeal the District Judge’s decision approximately three months out of time. On 24 May 2000, His Honour Judge Overend refused to extend time. The defendant then made a renewed application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal out of time. The central issues were whether the proposed appeal raised a question of law and whether the delays had been properly explained.

Lord Justice Ward delivered the judgment. Lord Justice Potter agreed. The application was dismissed, with no order for costs.

1. Nature of the proposed appeal. An appeal from a small claims arbitration is limited to a question of law. The dispute about whether the defendant was acting as a trader involved conflicting evidence about advertisements for cars. The District Judge was entitled to prefer one account. That assessment concerned the weight of the evidence and raised a question of fact. It would have been different if there had been no evidence capable of supporting the finding.
2. Extension of time. The appeal against the District Judge’s judgment was about three months late, with no proper explanation in the papers. The stated reason that the defendant had taken a long time to act did not justify the delay. Judge Overend was entitled to refuse an extension.
3. The defendant’s later delay in seeking permission to appeal against Judge Overend’s order was also unexplained. Although the court had been sympathetic to her account that she cared for a terminally ill friend, she could not establish when that difficulty arose or provide a satisfactory explanation for the relevant periods. The court could not conclude that Judge Overend had erred. A litigant who held herself out as having substantial professional court experience was less readily excused for failing to comply with known time requirements.
4. On examining the underlying proceedings, Ward LJ concluded independently that the proposed appeal against the District Judge’s order was equally hopeless. The renewed application therefore had no real prospect of success.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 September 2002, the renewed application for permission to appeal out of time was dismissed, with no order for costs. [2002] EWCA Civ 1413
• Plymouth County Court: On 24 May 2000, His Honour Judge Overend refused to extend time for an appeal against the District Judge’s judgment.
• Plymouth County Court: On 18 May 1999, District Judge Thomas entered judgment for the claimant for £1,613.88 plus costs.