London Borough Of Southwark v Kaikai

Permission for a second appeal from a county court decision made on appeal is available 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 personal importance of the dispute, including the risk of losing possession of a home, does not itself satisfy that threshold. Complaints about the lower court’s conduct or alleged legal misdirection must demonstrate a qualifying point or compelling reason. Where they do not, the application has no real prospect of success under Civil Procedure Rules Part 52.13.

The applicant was a secure tenant of the London Borough of Southwark. Following possession orders and suspended warrants based on rent arrears, a District Judge dismissed his application for a stay of execution. On 7 January 2002, His Honour Judge Cox dismissed his appeal from that decision.

The applicant sought permission for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. He alleged legal misdirection, bias, insufficient opportunity to present his case and denial of a fair hearing. The central issue was whether the proposed second appeal satisfied the permission requirements in Civil Procedure Rules Part 52.13.

Disposition. Lord Justice Mummery refused permission to appeal. The application did not satisfy the statutory threshold for a second appeal.

1. Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 52.13, permission was required because the proposed appeal was from a county court decision which had itself been made on appeal. Permission could be granted only if the appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. The fact that the proposed appeal was of great importance to the applicant’s continued occupation of his premises was insufficient. Personal importance did not amount to an important point of principle or practice. The grounds alleging misdirection, bias, inadequate time to explain the case and denial of a fair hearing did not establish a qualifying point or compelling reason.
3. The judge suggested that the applicant approach the Council’s Housing Department to seek agreement concerning possession and payment of the arrears. If no agreement could be reached, a further application to the Lambeth County Court remained possible. The Court of Appeal declined to predict the outcome of any such application, which would depend on its nature, supporting evidence and legal basis.
4. The application had no real prospect of success because it fell outside Part 52.13. Application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Mummery refused permission for a second appeal on 19 March 2002: [2002] EWCA Civ 432.
2. Lambeth County Court: His Honour Judge Cox dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 7 January 2002.
3. Lambeth County Court: A District Judge dismissed the application for a stay of execution on 31 August 2001; a stay was subsequently granted pending the appeal to His Honour Judge Cox.