A (Children), Re

Permission to appeal from a county court decision will be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The test is applied objectively and strictly. The applicant’s personal sense that the dispute is important does not satisfy it. Where enforcement proceedings concern an existing order, the proper focus is on enforcement unless fraud or another vitiating element affecting the root order is established. Convention rights must be considered, but Article 8 does not prevent justified interference with the rights of the parties or children.

The applicant father sought permission to appeal three county court orders arising from prolonged matrimonial and enforcement litigation. Two applications concerned orders made by His Honour Judge Lord Meston QC on 25 January 2001. The third concerned an order made by Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith on 4 October 2001 upholding enforcement orders made by District Judge Rutherford in January and July 2001.

The underlying order, concerning the division of assets, had been made in 1998. Before the Circuit Judge, the father alleged misconduct and non-disclosure by the mother and her legal representatives, and alleged breaches of Convention rights. Those allegations were rejected. The central issue was whether the statutory threshold for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal was met.

1. Applications dismissed. The applications relating to the discretionary orders made by Judge Lord Meston disclosed no error in the exercise of discretion, plainly wrong conclusion, or fundamental failure in the process below.
2. Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 imposes a high and strictly interpreted threshold. Permission requires an objectively assessed important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case. The applicant’s own view of the importance of the issues is insufficient.
3. The 1998 order remained effective unless fraud or another vitiating element was proved. The father’s allegations of misconduct and non-disclosure had been considered and rejected by the Circuit Judge. The later proceedings were therefore properly characterised as enforcement proceedings concerning the existing order.
4. The Circuit Judge had properly considered the Convention rights relied upon. In particular, Article 8 protected the rights of both parents and the children, but there had been no interference or, alternatively, any interference was justified in the circumstances.
5. Beer v Higham, relied upon by the applicant, was not relevant to the issues raised. Nothing objectively raised an important point of principle or practice or provided another compelling reason for appellate intervention. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the applications for permission to appeal and refused permission in relation to the county court orders.
• Bristol County Court: Judge Darwall-Smith upheld enforcement orders made by District Judge Rutherford. Judge Lord Meston QC had made the other orders challenged.