Barnes v Peter Godfrey-Evans

Permission to appeal is refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for being heard. A second-tier appeal additionally requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. Case-management decisions, including adjournment decisions and unless orders, attract a discretionary judgment which will not be disturbed without an adequate basis for intervention.

Peter Barnes, a bankrupt, sought permission to appeal against orders of Rimer J and Pumfrey J. The orders concerned an adjournment, the listing of his appeals, and an unless order made by Registrar James in proceedings under section 303 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The unless order required written answers to requests for further information concerning a proposed claim relating to damage to a motor car.

Permission concerning Rimer J’s order was governed by CPR 52.3(6). Permission concerning Pumfrey J’s decision was a second-tier appeal governed by section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR Part 52.13. The central issue was whether either application satisfied the applicable permission threshold.

1. Applications refused. Lord Justice Aldous refused permission to appeal in both applications.
2. As to Rimer J’s refusal to adjourn or vacate the listing, CPR 52.3(6) required a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The decision was within the judge’s discretion, and the possibility of renewing the adjournment application before the judge hearing the appeal meant that no sufficient basis for intervention was shown.
3. As to Pumfrey J’s decision, the proposed appeal was a second-tier appeal. Section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR Part 52.13 required an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for this court to hear it. No such point or reason arose.
4. The judge was entitled to conclude that Registrar James had correctly exercised his discretion in making the unless order. Mr Barnes had not sought an extension of time, had not provided a proper explanation for non-compliance, and there had been no evidence of any attempt to comply during the intervening period.
5. Other grounds, including alleged procedural unfairness, bias, breach of article 6 and failure to consider the White Book, disclosed no arguable basis satisfying the relevant permission tests.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for permission to appeal against orders of Rimer J and Pumfrey J refused.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Rimer J refused an application to vacate the hearing of the appeals. Pumfrey J dismissed the appeal from Registrar James’s order and refused an adjournment.
• Registrar James: Made an unless order requiring written answers to requests for further information, failing which the section 303 application would stand dismissed with costs.