Pattison v Clarksons & Steele

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no viable basis for appellate intervention. This includes applications seeking to reopen matters already dealt with by the courts, particularly where the proposed appeal would be doomed to failure and expose the applicant to further costs. Persistence in longstanding litigation, however genuine, does not itself establish an arguable ground of appeal.

Mr Pattison brought copyright proceedings after alleging that a commercially marketed game infringed his copyright. The claim was later struck out. He subsequently pursued negligence proceedings against his solicitors and made further applications concerning costs, bankruptcy and the continuation of related claims. Those proceedings and applications were repeatedly dismissed or struck out.

He sought permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Behrens in the Leeds County Court on 25 and 28 June 2002. The central issue was whether his grounds disclosed any arguable basis for appellate intervention.

Lord Justice Mantell, sitting alone, refused the applications for permission to appeal.

1. The court considered the extensive history of the dispute, including the earlier striking out of the negligence claim against Clarksons & Steele, the refusal of permission to appeal that decision, subsequent proceedings treated as an abuse of process, outstanding costs orders and the bankruptcy order.
2. His Honour Judge Behrens had directed that the claim against Clarksons & Steele remain struck out. He had also stated that, absent assignment by the Official Receiver, Mr Pattison was not competent to pursue the applications. The judge further declined to entertain complaints directed at members of the Court of Appeal, considered the application to annul the bankruptcy order out of time, and dismissed the proposed further review as an abuse of process.
3. Having examined the documents and the grounds advanced, Lord Justice Mantell could find no basis for granting permission. The grounds were insufficiently structured but, even when considered in the most favourable light, any appeal would be doomed to failure.
4. The court took account of Mr Pattison's lack of legal training and the personal significance of the litigation, but those matters could not supply an arguable ground of appeal. A further appeal would only risk another order for costs.

The application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 16 October 2002, Lord Justice Mantell refused permission to appeal.
• Leeds County Court: His Honour Judge Behrens made orders on 25 and 28 June 2002 maintaining the existing position concerning the struck-out claim, the bankruptcy proceedings and the proposed further review.