Woolwich Plc v Chauhan

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success. That conclusion may be reached where the lower court has made detailed findings after examining documents and hearing witnesses, and has given full and careful reasons. An order may properly be corrected under the slip rule where the intended order is clear and the correction gives effect to that intention. Permission was therefore refused in a dispute concerning mortgage accounts, interest rates, discounts and redemption charges.

Dr Mukesh Chandubhai Chauhan sought permission to appeal from orders made by His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards in the Brentford County Court on 3 September and 9 November 2001. The orders followed the redemption of mortgage loans secured on his property and concerned the preparation of the mortgage accounts.

The County Court had determined issues concerning the applicable fixed rates, an unpaid instalment, the date of conversion to a 4.99 per cent rate, mortgage discounts, a redemption penalty and consequential loss. The central question was whether an appeal from those determinations had a reasonable prospect of success.

Application refused. The Court of Appeal concluded that an appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success and would be hopeless.

1. The lower court had conducted an extensive hearing, examined numerous documents, heard several witnesses and delivered a full judgment with detailed reasons. The appellate court gave weight to that careful fact-finding process, particularly as the trial judge had seen and heard Dr Chauhan.
2. The findings on the mortgage accounts provided no realistic basis for an appeal. The principal mortgage had become fixed at 9.25 per cent, and the home improvement loan was also fixed at that rate from 1 November 1993. The instalment due in October 1993 had not been paid.
3. The agreed conversion to a fixed rate of 4.99 per cent took effect during October 1996. The lender was under no obligation to offer or agree to a new rate at an earlier date, and the delay in completing the conversion was not attributable to it.
4. The earlier mortgage discounts were not revived when the loans moved to later fixed rates. The mortgage conditions contained no such entitlement. The lender could set the applicable rates, provided they were advertised and were not inconsistent with the contract.
5. There was no evidence that the redemption penalty had been waived.
6. The corrected order of 9 November 2001 was properly made under the slip rule. There was no doubt about the order originally intended, notwithstanding the need to correct an order prepared and initialled during the proceedings.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dr Chauhan’s application for permission to appeal from the County Court orders of 3 September and 9 November 2001 was refused.
• Brentford County Court: His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards determined the mortgage-accounting issues and corrected the resulting order under the slip rule.