Barnes v Abbey National Plc

An appellate court may enforce a direction that a relisted application will be dismissed if the applicant fails to attend on time. Where the applicant does not attend, the court may dismiss the application in accordance with that direction. The court may also reconsider the apparent merits on the material available. Where the proposed appeal has no prospect of success, there is no basis to alter an earlier refusal of permission.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against an order of Ferris J dated 28 October 2002, which dismissed his application to adjourn the hearing of his appeal in possession proceedings. Ferris J also refused permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal initially refused permission on the papers and dismissed a renewed application when the applicant did not attend. The application was reinstated subject to a direction that failure to attend the relisted hearing on time would result in dismissal. The central issue was whether that direction should take effect when the applicant again failed to attend.

1. The application was dismissed pursuant to the direction made when it was reinstated. The applicant failed to attend the relisted hearing on time and sent a fax giving reasons connected with medical appointments. The court saw no reason why the earlier direction should not take effect.
2. The court had again considered the merits so far as they appeared from the material before it. It found no basis for changing its earlier view. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success.
3. The procedural order therefore stood. The application was dismissed and there was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 November 2002, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker dismissed the relisted application for permission to appeal after the applicant failed to attend, and concluded that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.
2. High Court, Chancery Division: Ferris J made an order on 28 October 2002 dismissing the applicant’s application to adjourn the hearing of his appeal in possession proceedings and refused permission to appeal.