Alaneme v London Borough Of Bromley

An application for permission to appeal against an order previously challenged and refused is liable to dismissal where the renewed application is hopelessly out of time and abusive or vexatious. Alleged new evidence must be capable of supporting an appeal against the order under challenge. A later event or document unrelated to the issues determined by that order cannot do so. A connected order of a Master provides no separate route to appeal where the principal order is not sensibly appealable.

The claimant brought High Court proceedings against the local authority, seeking an injunction to prevent alleged attacks on her, her daughter and her flat, together with substantial damages. Mitchell J refused an injunction and struck out the claim. Master Foster dismissed related applications for summary judgment and an injunction.

A previous application for permission to appeal against Mitchell J's order was refused by Chadwick LJ on 1 March 2000. The claimant renewed the application in September 2002, relying on further allegations and a warrant issued by a Magistrates' Court in 2001. The central issues were whether the application concerned the same order, whether it was in time, and whether the new material gave a sensible basis for an appeal.

Application for permission to appeal dismissed.

1. The application was plainly directed to the same order made by Mitchell J in December 1999. Permission to appeal against that order had already been refused by Chadwick LJ. The renewed application offered no sensible basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the earlier decision.
2. The application was also hopelessly out of time. Its extreme and generalised allegations, together with the further document filed shortly before the hearing, made the application abusive and vexatious.
3. The warrant issued by the Magistrates' Court in June 2001 could not support an appeal against Mitchell J's order made in December 1999. Whatever its merits, it was unrelated to the issues determined by that order and could not establish a basis for challenging the refusal of an injunction or the striking out of the claim.
4. Master Foster's order raised no separate point. If Mitchell J's order was not sensibly appealable, the related order of the Master provided no viable additional basis for an appeal, subject to any technical question concerning an appeal directly from the Master.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Chadwick LJ refused an earlier application for permission to appeal against the same order on 1 March 2000. Laws LJ dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Mitchell J refused an injunction and struck out the claim on 3 December 1999. Master Foster dismissed applications for summary judgment and an injunction on 10 December 1999.