Spencer v Spencer

Permission to appeal may be refused where the lower court’s judgment discloses no arguable misdirection or error. A difficult statutory question may be left undecided where it is unnecessary to determine the application. Additional grounds for refusal arise where the application is substantially out of time and the challenged orders have expired, leaving no practical relief to grant. Questions about public funding and wider reform are matters for government rather than the court.

Proceedings under the Family Law Act arose from non-molestation orders made by District Judge Robinson on 13 and 14 March 2001. Following alleged breaches, the District Judge on 2 May 2001 found two breaches proved, imposed a seven-day sentence suspended for six months for one breach, imposed no sentence for the other, and extended the injunction for 12 months. Mr Spencer appealed to Judge Reddihough, who found no merit in the challenge. He then sought permission to appeal and an extension of time. The central issues were whether there was any arguable error, whether section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 applied after an internal County Court appeal, and whether the application could be entertained after the orders had expired.

Lord Justice Thorpe refused both permission to appeal and an extension of time.

1. No arguable error. The County Court judge had given a careful and comprehensive judgment. Review disclosed no apparent misdirection or error, so there was no proper basis for intervention.
2. Unnecessary statutory question. The court expressly declined to decide whether section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 applied where the original committal order was made by a District Judge and followed by an internal appeal. The question was difficult, no argument had been heard on it, and it was unnecessary to resolve it.
3. Delay. Time for applying to the Court of Appeal expired on 4 October 2001. The application was filed on 29 November 2001, nearly eight weeks late. This provided an additional reason not to entertain the proceedings.
4. No practical relief. The six-month suspension period had expired without further complaint, and the 12-month injunction extension had also expired. The challenged orders were spent and the court could not usefully assist.
5. Any proposal for public funding of respondents to injunction applications, as well as committal applications, was a matter of public policy for government and outside the court’s function.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal and an extension of time were refused.
2. Great Grimsby County Court: His Honour Judge Reddihough considered the appeal from the District Judge’s orders and gave judgment finding no merit in the challenge.
3. District Judge Robinson: made non-molestation orders, later found two breaches proved, imposed a suspended sentence for one breach, and extended the injunction for 12 months.