McKay, R (on the application of) v Derby County Court & Ors

The Court of Appeal may refuse permission where the proposed appeal has no realistic prospect of establishing that the relief sought is available. A bankruptcy order cannot be reopened by judicial review where an earlier judicial-review challenge has failed and other remedies have also been pursued without success. Alleged irregularities in the underlying proceedings do not justify further disclosure or appellate intervention where the available documentary material substantially addresses what occurred and the asserted discrepancies do not undermine the record. An adjournment should likewise be refused where alleged transcript defects are immaterial.

The applicant sought permission to appeal two decisions. Maurice Kay J had refused permission to bring judicial-review proceedings challenging a bankruptcy order made against her in 2000. Laddie J had refused relief requiring disclosure of further documents concerning an earlier county-court hearing which resulted in a judgment and subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant alleged that the earlier hearing had not taken place and challenged discrepancies in the documentary record and transcript. She also sought an adjournment to obtain a fuller transcript. The central issues were whether the proposed appeals were arguable, whether further disclosure was justified, and whether judicial review remained available to challenge the bankruptcy order.

Applications for permission to appeal refused.

1. The Court of Appeal declined to adjourn the application concerning Laddie J’s decision. The alleged omissions from the mechanically produced transcript, including incidental remarks, did not affect its reliability on material matters. Discrepancies concerning figures and the date on which an order was drawn did not provide a sufficient basis for treating the transcript or underlying documentation as deficient.
2. The material before the court included a certified copy of the county-court judgment, a detailed court log, solicitors’ correspondence, an endorsement on counsel’s brief and counsel’s note. Although the applicant identified curious features and sought further records, the court was not persuaded that the documents were fraudulent or that Mr Recorder Bright had not dealt with the case. It was not arguable that the further disclosure orders sought against the respondents or court officers should be made.
3. There was no basis for judicial review of the bankruptcy order in the circumstances. The applicant had already unsuccessfully attempted judicial review and had also pursued remedies in the Chancery Division, including an application to annul the order. There was no prospect of quashing, by judicial review in 2002, a bankruptcy order made in 2000.
4. The final order was that both applications for permission were refused. The transcript of the judgment was to be supplied at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against the decisions of Maurice Kay J and Laddie J was refused.
• Administrative Court: Maurice Kay J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the bankruptcy order on 3 September 2001, agreeing with Elias J that the order was not susceptible to judicial review and that any challenge should proceed by appeal.
• Chancery Division: District Judges Butler and Rogers made orders concerning the bankruptcy order, including refusing annulment. Permission to appeal was subsequently refused by Hart J.