Seldon Ward & Nutall v Hedden

An application for permission to appeal should be dismissed where the grounds disclose no basis for impugning the decision below. The Court of Appeal need not prolong consideration of wholly ungrounded allegations where substantial judicial time has already been spent on them. The application was dismissed unanimously, with no order for costs.

Brenda Hedden applied for permission to appeal from an order of Hallett J refusing permission. The underlying decision had been made by District Judge White on 21 November 2001. An earlier appeal had been dismissed by Judge Coterill in the Thornton County Court, although he had mistakenly proceeded on the basis that no oral hearing was required. Hedden did not attend the Court of Appeal hearing and was unrepresented. The central question was whether her grounds disclosed any proper basis for challenging District Judge White’s decision.

1. Application dismissed. Moses J held that the voluminous grounds advanced by Hedden disclosed no ground whatever for impugning District Judge White’s decision.
2. The allegations made against the judges and court officers who had dealt with the matter were wholly ungrounded. A considerable amount of judicial time had already been spent on them. The court therefore declined to prolong the expenditure of judicial time by considering the application further.
3. The court noted that Judge Coterill had operated under the misapprehension that an oral hearing was unnecessary, when one was required. The present application had been listed for an oral hearing, but that procedural history did not disclose an arguable ground for challenging the underlying decision.
4. Thorpe LJ agreed with Moses J. The application was dismissed and there was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed Hedden’s application for permission to appeal: [2002] EWCA Civ 782.
2. Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (Hallett J) refused permission to appeal.
3. Thornton County Court (Judge Coterill) dismissed an earlier appeal against District Judge White’s decision, having mistakenly proceeded on the basis that no oral hearing was required.
4. District Judge White made the underlying decision on 21 November 2001.