Knight v Sage Group Plc

An application to reinstate an application for permission to appeal may be dealt with in the applicant’s absence where the court has given a fair opportunity to attend and the applicant provides no sufficient basis for further adjournment. The application may properly be dismissed where the proposed appeal has no prospect of success. To prevent repeated and disproportionate use of court resources, the court may direct that any further application concerning reinstatement be made on paper within a specified period.

Ms Knight sought reinstatement of an application for permission to appeal after Chadwick LJ dismissed it on 7 May 2002 in her absence. The proposed appeal concerned McCombe J’s dismissal, on 4 December 2001, of an application to set aside HHJ Taylor’s order of 2 May 2001 striking out Ms Knight’s claim against Sage Group plc and restraining further applications.

Ms Knight relied on reasons for her repeated non-attendance, including health difficulties, and sought a further adjournment. The central issues were whether the reinstatement application should be heard in her absence and whether the proposed appeal had any realistic prospect of success.

1. Application dismissed. The court refused a further adjournment and proceeded in Ms Knight’s absence on the documentary material available. The medical evidence did not justify another postponement after previous relistings and repeated failures to attend.
2. The application to reinstate was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no prospect whatever of succeeding. The same conclusion had been reached by Chadwick LJ and McCombe J. The underlying claim had been struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and its prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.
3. The court was entitled to take account of the repeated waste of time and expense caused by non-attendance and repeated applications. The order was made in order to avoid further unnecessary use of court resources.
4. Any application to reinstate the present application, or the earlier application before Chadwick LJ, was directed to be made to Parker LJ on paper within 14 days. Any such application would be dealt with on paper, without a further oral hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Chadwick LJ dismissed the application for permission to appeal on 7 May 2002, both because the applicant had not attended and because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.
• High Court: McCombe J dismissed the application to set aside HHJ Taylor’s strike-out order on 4 December 2001.
• High Court: HHJ Taylor struck out the claim on 2 May 2001 and restrained further applications.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application to reinstate was dismissed.