Woolman v Suriya & Co (A Firm)

On a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal, the court held that it was open to a county court judge to treat as a serious procedural irregularity the making of unless orders before deciding an unrepresented litigant’s application to transfer proceedings. This was particularly so where the litigant had explained difficulty travelling to the existing court and non-compliance could dismiss the claim. The judge could set aside the resulting order despite shortcomings in the transfer application, including absence of medical evidence and non-attendance. Permission was refused because the decision was one the judge was entitled to reach and the proposed appeal raised no important point of principle or practice or other compelling reason.

The claimant alleged that defendant solicitors had negligently allowed his personal injury claim to become statute-barred. After his legal aid certificate was discharged and his solicitors came off the record, he applied to transfer the proceedings to the Shoreditch County Court because he was acting in person and had difficulty travelling to the existing court.

Before deciding the transfer application, the Luton County Court made unless orders. The claim was subsequently declared dismissed for non-compliance. A Deputy District Judge refused to set that order aside. Judge Cotran later set it aside, considering it unjust that the transfer application had not been determined first. The defendants sought renewed permission for a second appeal, challenging that approach and the characterisation of the procedural history as a serious irregularity.

1. Application refused. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. The applicable appellate approach did not permit an appellate judge to substitute a preferred view merely because the judge below might have exercised the discretion differently. Permission could be granted only if the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. As this was a proposed second appeal, there also had to be an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason.
3. Where a litigant becomes unrepresented and explains that he is acting in person and has difficulty attending a court some distance from home, the court should consider an application to transfer proceedings before making further procedural orders. That consideration is especially important where the orders may have dire consequences, such as dismissal for non-compliance with unless orders.
4. It was open to Judge Cotran to regard the failure to determine the transfer application before the unless orders took effect as unjust and as a serious procedural or other irregularity. He was therefore entitled to set aside the Deputy District Judge’s order.
5. The claimant’s failure to provide medical evidence, non-attendance and other shortcomings might have led another judge to refuse relief. They did not establish that Judge Cotran’s conclusion was unavailable to him. The proposed appeal raised no important point of principle or practice and no other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2002] EWCA Civ 659, Lord Justice Tuckey refused the defendants’ renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal.
• Shoreditch County Court — Judge Cotran set aside the Deputy District Judge’s order, holding it unjust that the transfer application had not been heard before the unless orders were made and took effect.
• Luton County Court — A Deputy District Judge refused to set aside the order dismissing the claim. The earlier order had followed the claimant’s non-compliance with unless orders made before his transfer application was determined.