Scarth v Yorkshire Post Newspapers

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed appeal is wholly hopeless and the lower court’s orders were soundly based, properly reasoned and inevitable. A defamation claim should not proceed to trial where, on a proper view of the law, the publications do not libel the claimant and the pleaded claims are totally misconceived. Complaints under Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights will fail where the hearing record shows that the judge gave the litigant a full opportunity to address every point.

The applicant, an elderly prisoner, brought defamation proceedings concerning various newspaper articles. Judge Grenfell, sitting as a High Court judge, ordered him to particularise his claim and later struck out the claim, making costs orders subject to permission for enforcement.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against both orders and alleged breaches of Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal considered the applications on the documents because neither party attended.

1. Applications refused. The proposed appeals were hopeless. The orders below were soundly based, properly reasoned and inevitable, and there were no legitimate grounds of appeal.
2. The order requiring particularisation was properly made so that the respondents could plead their defences. The associated costs order disclosed no arguable basis for appeal.
3. The strike-out order was correct. The judgment below carefully examined the newspaper articles and the matters relied upon. The claims were totally misconceived and, on a proper view of the law, the publications did not libel the applicant. It would therefore have been wrong to allow the action to proceed to trial.
4. The complaints under Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights were wholly ill founded. The transcripts showed that Judge Grenfell went out of his way to assist the applicant and gave him the fullest opportunity to deal with every point.
5. Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused against orders made by Judge Grenfell, sitting as a High Court judge, on 24 September 2001 and 10 January 2002. The first order required particularisation of the defamation claim and imposed costs. The second struck out the claim and imposed costs.