Slot & Anor v Isaac

Under section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, no appeal lies against a court’s decision to grant or refuse permission to appeal. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a litigant may apply to the appropriate appeal court for permission to appeal the original decision. If permission is refused on paper, the available remedy is reconsideration at an oral hearing, not an appeal to a higher court. An extension of time may be sought for that reconsideration request. A previous order made in another matter cannot create jurisdiction. An application lodged in a court that plainly lacks jurisdiction may be rejected summarily as an administrative act.

The claimants sought permission to appeal against Jack J’s order of 7 November 2001. Jack J had held that he lacked jurisdiction to hear their application to appeal Judge Parry’s refusal of permission to appeal. Judge Parry’s order concerned part of District Judge Enser’s case-management order in the Guildford County Court. The claimants had not asked Judge Parry to reconsider his paper refusal at an oral hearing and instead sought permission from a High Court judge. The central issue was whether that further appeal route existed.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Brooke delivered the substantive judgment. Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Keene agreed. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. Statutory jurisdiction. Judge Parry was the appeal court for the proposed appeal from District Judge Enser within the meaning of CPR 52.1(3)(b). Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 barred any appeal against Judge Parry’s decision to refuse permission. Jack J was therefore correct to hold that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for permission to appeal against that refusal.
3. Available procedure. The combined effect of CPR 52.3(3)–(5) is that a litigant may make a fresh application for permission to appeal against the original decision to the appropriate appeal court. If that court refuses permission without a hearing, the litigant may request reconsideration at an oral hearing within seven days after service of the refusal notice. If permission is refused at that hearing, no further right of appeal exists. The court applied the procedural explanation in Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-Macdonald [2001] 1 WLR 1311.
4. Ancillary guidance. A different order made in another matter could not confer jurisdiction which the court did not possess. The claimants could have sought an extension of time under CPR 3.1(2)(a) for a reconsideration request, since the rules did not exclude that possibility. The drafting of CPR 52PD, and the relevant court guides, could cause confusion, but could not enlarge the statutory jurisdiction.
5. Administrative handling. Where an application is lodged in the High Court in circumstances where it is plainly without jurisdiction, it may be rejected summarily as an administrative act. No reasoned judgment is required merely because court staff consult a judge to confirm the jurisdictional defect. The court referred by comparison to Jolly v Jay [2002] EWCA Civ 277 at [19].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the claimants’ application for permission to appeal and upheld Jack J’s conclusion that he had no jurisdiction.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Jack J, on 7 November 2001, held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal against Judge Parry’s refusal of permission and refused permission to appeal against Judge Caitlin’s order of 16 July 2001.
3. Guildford County Court: Judge Parry, on 30 April 2001, refused permission to appeal against part of District Judge Enser’s case-management order of 8 March 2001. The claimants had not requested reconsideration of the paper refusal at an oral hearing.