Samuels Corporate v Somers

A court’s decision to grant or refuse permission to appeal under the Access to Justice Act 1999 cannot itself be appealed where the statutory bar applies. A refusal of permission to appeal from a county court decision fell within section 54(4). The Court of Appeal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal against that refusal. Where professional fees have not been agreed and no tariff or legally prescribed scale exists, assessment may necessarily involve a broad evaluative approach. Efficient judicial management of time does not, without more, make that approach unfair.

Samuels Corporate sued Mr Somers for unpaid professional fees. There was no agreed fee, tariff or legally prescribed scale. A District Judge awarded the claimant £2,200 after allowing for the defendant’s criticisms and a voluntary discount.

Mr Somers sought permission to appeal. On 21 September 2001, Mr Recorder Hamlin refused permission except on a mathematical ground, on which the claimant consented to the appeal being allowed. Mr Somers then sought permission in the Court of Appeal to challenge the refusal of permission on the remaining grounds. The central issue was whether section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 barred that further appeal.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain Mr Somers’s proposed appeal. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that no appeal may be made against a decision of a court under section 54 to give or refuse permission.
2. The Recorder’s refusal of permission to appeal to the county court was a decision within section 54(1). It therefore came within the prohibition in section 54(4). The court was bound to refuse permission, and the absence of the full transcript before the Recorder could not confer jurisdiction which the statute removed.
3. Lord Justice Sedley nevertheless considered the principal complaints on their merits. The transcript did not show unfair pressure of time. The District Judge was entitled to manage the hearing and to keep in view the productive use of time.
4. In assessing an unagreed professional bill, where there is no pre-agreed figure, tariff or legally fixed scale, a broad approach to quantification may be unavoidable. Subject to the mathematical error already corrected by consent, the District Judge’s approach was overwhelmingly likely to have been upheld even if the transcript had been available. Those observations were not the basis of the order; the statutory lack of jurisdiction was decisive.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 201, Lord Justice Sedley refused permission because section 54(4) barred an appeal against the Recorder’s refusal of permission.
• Kingston upon Thames County Court, before Mr Recorder Hamlin: On 21 September 2001, permission to appeal was refused except on a mathematical ground. The claimant consented to the appeal being allowed on that ground.
• Kingston upon Thames County Court, before District Judge Dimmick: In August 2001, judgment was entered for £2,200 in respect of the unpaid professional fees.