London Borough Of Newham v Mustapha

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice. A renewed application may be dismissed summarily where the papers show it to be hopeless. The applicant’s failure to attend and failure to provide any explanation for the absence may reinforce the decision to dismiss the application without further ado.

Mr Mustapha made a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of His Honour Judge Bradbury dated 14 October 2002. The application constituted a second appeal. The applicant acted in person. The respondent did not appear or have representation.

The central issues were whether the proposed appeal met the threshold for permission on a second appeal and whether the renewed application should be dismissed when the applicant neither attended the hearing nor explained his absence.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. Second-appeal threshold. Lord Justice Dyson stated that permission should not be granted on a second appeal unless the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice.
3. Application of the threshold. Having read the papers, the court regarded the application as hopeless. The applicant had not attended the hearing, listed for 10.30 am, and had not communicated any reason for his absence. In those circumstances, the court saw no reason to postpone consideration or to take any further step before dismissing the application.
4. Final order. The application was dismissed without further ado.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 November 2002, the court dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal. [2002] EWCA Civ 1751
2. Bow County Court: His Honour Judge Bradbury had decided the matter on 14 October 2002.