Edward Harris & Son v Mrs H.M.W. Ashworth

On a further appeal, the Court of Appeal requires a significant point of principle before it will entertain the matter. A County Court judge reviewing a District Judge may intervene only for a significant error. A complaint that an unrepresented party lacked the court bundle will not justify permission where the complaint was considered by the intermediate judge, the applicant later had the bundle and could present the case, and no legal error or general principle is identified.

The solicitors sought to recover costs and expenses from Mrs Ashworth after acting for her as a privately paying client. She alleged that the solicitor had failed to recognise her eligibility for legal aid and had presented the costs claim unfairly. District Judge John decided the costs dispute on 21 January 1999. His Honour Judge Graham Jones heard her appeal on 9 June 2000 and did not reverse that decision.

Mrs Ashworth applied out of time for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. She complained that she had not received the court bundle before the District Judge’s hearing and had therefore been unable to present her case adequately. The central issues were whether the County Court judge had been misled or had made a significant error, and whether the alleged procedural difficulty disclosed a significant point of principle.

Application refused. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

1. The application was out of time, but the court disregarded that issue because Mrs Ashworth was representing herself.
2. The application arose from a judgment of the County Court on an appeal from a District Judge. The Court of Appeal would not entertain such an appeal unless it raised a significant point of principle. The County Court judge’s role had been to review the District Judge’s decision, and intervention at that stage required a significant error by the District Judge.
3. Mrs Ashworth alleged that she had lacked the court bundle at the District Judge’s hearing. The Court of Appeal did not resolve that factual dispute. Even assuming that she had not received the bundle, she had received it by the time of the hearing before Judge Jones and was able to explain her complaints to him.
4. Judge Jones was aware of the relevant financial change, including Mrs Ashworth’s account that the savings previously recorded had been lost. He had her detailed written comments about the earlier hearing and awarded costs only up to the point at which she informed the solicitor of the changed financial position. The presentation of the solicitor’s case had not misled him.
5. There was no basis for concluding that Judge Jones had erred in law or that he should have reversed the District Judge’s decision. The case raised no point of general principle. The formal order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal and dismissed the application.
• Cardiff County Court: His Honour Judge Graham Jones heard an appeal from the District Judge on 9 June 2000 and did not reverse the decision.
• District Judge John: decided the solicitors’ costs dispute on 21 January 1999.