Lee & Anor v Stephens & Anor

Permission to challenge a consent order may be refused where the hearing transcript shows that the terms and consequences of the order were carefully explained and the party confirmed understanding them. A later assertion of ill health will not establish a real prospect of setting aside the order where the party did not seek an adjournment, disclose the condition to the judge, or appear unable to comprehend the proceedings. A late trial bundle is immaterial where it had no bearing on the agreement reached.

The claimants sued Paul Stephens and June Stephens for harassment, eviction-related loss, distress, inconvenience and aggravated damages arising from a tenancy dispute. At the hearing, the claim against June Stephens was resolved, leaving Paul Stephens to defend the claim in person.

During the hearing, Paul Stephens offered £4,000. The parties then agreed an order for £4,000 damages, costs capped at £7,500, and payment by instalments. The order was explained to him by counsel and the judge, and he confirmed his understanding.

Paul Stephens sought permission to appeal, alleging a misunderstanding about legal aid, late receipt of the trial bundle, illness and a possible defence to the claim. The central issue was whether those matters gave the proposed appeal a real prospect of setting aside the consent order.

Lord Justice Aldous delivered the single judgment. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Nature of the order. The order was made following an agreement reached during the hearing. It required Paul Stephens to pay £4,000 in damages and the claimants’ costs, subject to a ceiling of £7,500, by instalments. Counsel and the judge explained the terms and their consequences in detail. Paul Stephens repeatedly confirmed that he understood the obligation and the enforcement consequences, including the possibility of bankruptcy or enforcement against property.
2. Late trial bundle. The complaint that the trial bundle was received only on the morning of the hearing could not support a challenge to the consent order. The agreement was reached after Paul Stephens had made his own offer and after a separate discussion with counsel. The bundle therefore had no bearing on whether he understood or validly entered into the agreement.
3. Ill health. Paul Stephens later relied on migraine, collapse and distress. The transcript showed that he did not seek an adjournment, tell the judge that he was unwell, or appear unable to understand the proceedings. The judge considered that, had his health been raised, the court would have taken further care before accepting the agreement. The contemporaneous record instead showed that the order had been understood.
4. Conclusion. Although the court expressed sympathy for his position, there was no real prospect of setting aside the consent judgment and sending the matter for trial. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 26 March 2002, permission to appeal was refused. [2002] EWCA Civ 451
2. Cardiff County Court — His Honour Judge Graham Jones made an order on 4 December 2001 recording the parties’ agreement for damages and costs.