Sharon Mary Claydon v Boys & Maughan & Anor

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene, under Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55. A proposed negligence appeal has no viable basis where the evidence does not support the alleged continuing injury and the claim is already met by an offer. Permission may also be refused where the alleged duty giving rise to the negligence claim is not shown to have existed. An adjournment will not be granted merely to obtain further supporting medical evidence where the request is speculative and the applicant is able to present the case.

Mrs Claydon sought permission to bring a second appeal after her negligence action against two firms of solicitors had been struck out. The action arose from a 1990 tripping accident. The first firm had represented her but advised acceptance of an offer of £2,500; legal aid was then frozen after she refused the offer. She later approached the second firm, but it was never instructed because legal aid was not transferred.

Master Turner struck out the action. Burton J dismissed the appeal from that order in a judgment dated 11 April 2002, assuming that the action had been brought within time. The central questions were whether the proposed appeal satisfied the statutory second-appeal test, whether the medical evidence supported continuing the claim, and whether either firm owed the alleged relevant obligation.

Application refused. Lord Justice Sedley refused permission to bring a second appeal.

1. Under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, permission required either an important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the proposed appeal. The application raised neither.
2. Even assuming that the action was in time, there was no medical evidence supporting enduring back damage from the accident. The medical reports rejected ongoing sequelae, and there was no evidence of an injury warranting continuation of a claim already met by an offer of £2,500 and costs.
3. There was also no apparent cause of action against either firm. On the history accepted for the application, neither firm appeared to have been under the obligation which Mrs Claydon alleged was necessary to found the negligence claims at the material time.
4. The request for an adjournment was refused. Mrs Claydon had no medical certificate and had been able to present her case. The court was not persuaded that an adjournment would produce a viable appeal, including by allowing her to find a doctor to support her case many years after the accident.

The formal order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 18 November 2002, Lord Justice Sedley refused permission for a second appeal: [2002] EWCA Civ 1815.
• High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Burton J dismissed the appeal from Master Turner's strike-out order in a judgment dated 11 April 2002.
• Master Turner: The negligence action was struck out.