Adshead v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

Under section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984, the High Court may transfer proceedings that should have been brought in the county court. It may strike them out only where satisfied that the person bringing them knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement. The provision does not require striking out whenever proceedings were mistakenly issued in the High Court.

Earlier orders confirmed by the county court and unsuccessfully challenged by an application for permission to appeal cannot ordinarily be reopened through later proceedings. A voidness argument does not avoid the effect of a valid transfer back to the county court and subsequent orders made within its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against refusal of permission to appeal to the House of Lords.

Mrs Adshead sought permission to appeal from several orders made by Ferris J after hearings on 24 and 25 January 2002. The applications concerned a stay, injunctive and disclosure relief, striking out, amendment, the validity of her substitution as a defendant, and a possession order concerning Bennetston Hall. James Wright separately sought permission to appeal an order requiring him to pay costs after his application to join the proceedings was withdrawn.

Ferris J rejected the applications, including the contention that possession proceedings had been invalidly transferred from the High Court to the county court. The central issues were the construction of section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984, the effect of earlier county court and Court of Appeal orders, the settlement agreement, alleged judicial bias, and the costs order.

1. Applications refused. There was no reasonable prospect of successfully challenging Ferris J’s orders.

2. Section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984 gives the High Court power to transfer proceedings back to the county court. Its alternative power to strike out proceedings arises only where the court is satisfied that the person bringing them knew, or ought to have known, that the proceedings should have been brought in the county court. The section does not require automatic striking out where the jurisdictional mistake resulted from lack of knowledge.

3. The possession proceedings had been transferred to the county court, where orders were made confirming Mrs Adshead’s position as defendant and granting possession. Permission to appeal those orders had previously been refused. Their validity could not be challenged through the present applications.

4. The argument that invalidity of the earlier High Court transfer rendered later steps void was untenable. Even if the transfer to the High Court had been void, the county court retained jurisdiction to make a possession order; in any event, section 40 expressly authorised transfer back to that court.

5. There was no arguable error concerning clause 17 of the settlement agreement, which required legal advice before the agreement became binding and enforceable. The allegations of bias against Judge Maddocks and Ferris J disclosed no proper basis for challenge.

6. James Wright’s withdrawn joinder application justified an order for costs. Any dispute about the amount of the bill was for the costs judge. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal to the House of Lords against refusal of permission to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission applications concerning orders made by Ferris J were refused.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Ferris J dismissed Mrs Adshead’s applications and made the orders challenged in the Court of Appeal.
• County Court: Possession proceedings were transferred back from the High Court and a possession order was made. An earlier application for permission to appeal that order was refused by the Court of Appeal.