Miller v C & G Coach Services Ltd

Where the viability of proposed appeal grounds depends on the admission of fresh evidence, the court deciding admissibility should also assess the existing evidence and the viability of the permission application. It may adjourn the application to the full court so that all issues can be considered together. An earlier paper assessment of arguability does not prevent the full court from reconsidering the permission issues in light of the complete evidential position.

Marissa Miller sought permission to appeal a decision of the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, where His Honour Judge Richard Seymour had concluded that C & G Coach Services Ltd was not liable. Lord Justice Sedley had initially considered the application on paper. He regarded the proposed fresh evidence as arguably admissible and considered that, if admitted, the appeal would be viable. Without that evidence, the identified appeal points appeared insufficiently strong. The renewed oral application concerned the issues said to stand independently of the fresh evidence. The central procedural question was whether those issues should be determined separately or by the full court together with the fresh-evidence question.

The application for permission to appeal was adjourned to the full court.

1. Lord Justice Sedley had previously considered that there was an arguable case for admitting fresh evidence. If admitted, the appeal would become viable. Without it, the issues identified in the appellant’s notice and written submissions did not appear to have a sufficient prospect of success.
2. The court deciding whether to admit the fresh evidence would need to examine carefully the evidence on which the trial judge had reached his conclusions. That court would therefore be better placed to decide whether the appeal points were viable, including the points said to arise without the fresh evidence.
3. The permission application was accordingly stood over to the full court. The full court was expected to consider all issues compendiously, and the estimated one-day hearing remained appropriate.

The order was procedural. The fresh evidence was neither admitted nor rejected, and permission to appeal was neither granted nor refused at this stage.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On renewal of the application for permission to appeal, Lord Justice Sedley adjourned the application to the full court.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: His Honour Judge Richard Seymour concluded that there was no liability. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.