Ratra v Attorney General

Permission to appeal is refused where the proposed appeal concerns matters that have been resolved, abandoned, or cannot properly be challenged in the proposed appellate court. A valid order must be obeyed through the appropriate procedural route; a court hearing an application for permission cannot grant relief outside its jurisdiction merely because compliance is disputed. Where a High Court judge refuses permission to appeal against a County Court order, the refusal may leave no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant, a litigant in person conducting numerous County Court actions, challenged several procedural decisions arising from those proceedings. The County Court had stayed his actions pending the Attorney General’s consideration of proceedings to declare him a vexatious litigant. Other issues concerned fee remission, implementation of an order permitting a transcript to be obtained at public expense, and the provision of copies of orders needed for proposed appeals or enforcement steps.

After the High Court refused the applicant’s applications, he sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. By the hearing, fee remission had been granted, the transcript issue was being pursued through another route, and the proposed appeal concerning the stay order was not pursued. The remaining issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order the County Court to supply three outstanding orders.

1. Application refused. The applicant was refused permission to appeal against every part of the order under challenge.
2. The fee-remission issue was no longer live because the applicant had obtained full remission. There was therefore no continuing issue requiring appellate determination.
3. The order permitting a transcript to be obtained at public expense was valid and required obedience. The judge hearing the later application had no further order to make in relation to it. The applicant had also chosen to pursue the missing-tape problem through a different procedural avenue, and no possible ground for permission was identified.
4. As to three County Court orders that had not been supplied, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the High Court judge sitting in chambers had jurisdiction to compel the County Court to provide them. The proposed error of law was therefore not reasonably arguable.
5. The challenge to the stay of the County Court proceedings was not pursued. In any event, the High Court’s refusal of permission to appeal to the High Court against that order gave rise to no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

• Central London County Court: proceedings brought by the applicant were stayed pending the Attorney General’s decision whether to seek an order declaring him a vexatious litigant. The County Court also dealt with the underlying orders and fee-remission issue.
• High Court: Mr Justice Penry-Davey refused the applicant’s applications, including the requested relief concerning fee remission, implementation of the transcript order, copies of County Court orders, and permission to appeal against the stay.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused on 26 April 2002: [2002] EWCA Civ 742. By then, fee remission had been granted, the transcript issue was being pursued elsewhere, and the applicant did not pursue the challenge to the stay.