Rezvi v Air Canada

A judge who refuses permission to appeal on paper may ordinarily reconsider that decision at an oral hearing. The reconsideration may be conducted by the same judge. This procedure does not itself breach Article 6 or procedural fairness, because the hearing enables the court to address new matters, errors or omissions.

A costs judge may use wide case-management powers to require present and former solicitors to attend a directions hearing where this assists in resolving potential liability for costs and the conduct of detailed assessment proceedings. Permission for a second appeal will be refused where the case raises no important point of principle or practice.

The claimant's personal-injury claim against Air Canada had settled. Her present solicitors sought detailed assessment of their costs and an extension of time concerning the potential costs of her former solicitors, Iliffes Booth Bennett.

District Judge Banks directed the present and former solicitors, and the defendant's solicitors, to attend a directions hearing. His Honour Judge MackIntyre dismissed the claimant's appeal from that order. The claimant then made a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal.

She also sought Lord Justice Tuckey's recusal because he had refused permission on paper. The issues were whether that prior paper decision required recusal and whether the district judge had jurisdiction or acted unfairly in directing the former solicitors to attend.

1. Permission to appeal was refused. This was a second appeal and the claimant had identified no important point of principle or practice. The district judge's direction was within his wide case-management powers, and the county-court judge had correctly dismissed the appeal.

2. Lord Justice Tuckey refused the recusal application. He endorsed Khreino v Khreino [2000] 1 FCR 75. Under CPR 52.3(4), a party may request an oral reconsideration after a paper refusal of permission. CPR 52PD, paragraph 4.13, expressly contemplates that the same judge may conduct it.

   The reconsideration is genuine. The judge must consider any new submissions, subsequent developments, authorities, or errors and omissions in the earlier reasons. The procedure does not itself infringe Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or common-law procedural fairness. A litigant who merely repeats earlier submissions cannot realistically expect permission to be granted.

3. The direction requiring the former solicitors to attend was sensible and lawful. The district judge faced the possibility of a further detailed assessment if the claimant proved liable for their costs. He was entitled to ascertain their position at a directions hearing, at which the claimant could be represented and any issue of liability or sequencing could be managed.

   The direction created no realistic risk of invasion of the claimant's privilege. If necessary, the assessments could be heard consecutively. The former solicitors later stated that they would not pursue their costs, and the claimant could have invited the district judge to vary the attendance direction in light of that letter.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal refused in this judgment.
• Uxbridge County Court: On 24 August 2001, His Honour Judge MackIntyre dismissed the claimant's appeal from the district judge's order.
• Uxbridge County Court: On 30 April 2001, District Judge Banks directed the claimant's present and former solicitors to attend a directions hearing concerning detailed assessment proceedings.