Hawsons Chartered Accountants (A Firm) v Sheehan & Anor

A renewed application for permission to appeal should address the reasons for any earlier refusal and provide relevant, balanced evidence, including transcripts requested by the court. Permission is properly refused where the proposed appeal is hopeless, particularly when it challenges firm findings of fact based on extensive cross-examination without identifying an arguable error. The proportionality of pursuing an appeal in relation to the amount at stake may also be relevant.

Maud & Newett Investments renewed an application under CPR 52.3(4) for permission to appeal against a Sheffield County Court judgment of 22 March 2002. The county court had awarded Mr Sheehan just over £33,000, with interest and costs, on his Part 20 claim. The underlying dispute concerned whether the applicants had orally agreed to indemnify Mr Sheehan for accountants’ fees connected with a proposed acquisition.

Simon Brown LJ had initially refused permission on paper. The renewal raised whether the trial judge had materially misunderstood the issue, improperly assessed the evidence, or should have treated Mr Sheehan as acting for a shell company.

1. Application refused. Brooke LJ held that the proposed appeal was hopeless. The trial judge had heard four hours of cross-examination, made express findings of fact, and found Mr Sheehan increasingly convincing. Those findings were strongly adverse to the applicants and disclosed no promising basis for appellate intervention.
2. A renewed application under CPR 52.3(4) should be properly prepared in light of the earlier refusal. Where the court has expressly requested relevant transcripts, they should be supplied and should not consist of one-sided selections. Counsel should also be informed of the reasons for the earlier refusal. The failure to do this was a serious deficiency in the renewal.
3. The applicants’ attempt to recast the dispute as requiring a more sophisticated analysis of the evidence, a precise formulation of the indemnity, and an application of corporate-responsibility principles did not disclose an arguable appeal. The evidence supported the finding that Mr Sheehan had undertaken direct responsibility for the accountants’ fees and had been promised an indemnity.
4. The proposed appeal also appeared disproportionate when its likely costs were compared with the amount in dispute. Simon Brown LJ agreed with Brooke LJ and described the application as ill-starred.

The application was refused.

• Sheffield County Court: On 22 March 2002, His Honour Judge Cracknell gave judgment for Mr Sheehan for just over £33,000, with interest and costs, on the Part 20 claim.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Simon Brown LJ initially refused permission on paper. Brooke LJ and Simon Brown LJ then refused the renewed application.