Lewis v Altaf

On a second-tier appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason, under CPR 52.13. A litigant in person may receive procedural indulgence, but an extension of time still requires a reasonable excuse. Speculative, unsupported or irrelevant grounds with no real prospect of success do not satisfy the permission threshold. The absence of a reasonable explanation for delay, an important point or compelling reason, and any merit justified refusal of both permission and an extension.

Mr Lewis claimed damages in the Worcester County Court for alleged trespass, nuisance and negligence after trees cut on Mr Altaf’s land allegedly fell onto his property and left debris.

District Judge McKenzie dismissed the claim on 29 April 2002, finding that Mr Lewis had not shown loss or a real nuisance. Mr Recorder Evans dismissed Mr Lewis’s appeal on 16 August 2002. Mr Lewis then sought an extension of time and permission for a second-tier appeal. He also sought an adjournment because he could not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned, whether time should be extended, and whether the proposed appeal met the threshold in CPR 52.13.

1. Adjournment. The Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request to adjourn. His failure to attend resulted from taking photocopies of cases and other documents, and no good reason for non-attendance had been shown.
2. Extension of time. The notice of appeal was filed out of time. Although some indulgence may often be given to litigants in person, an extension still requires a reasonable excuse. The applicant’s explanation, namely that he had been preparing a large volume of other civil cases, was insufficient.
3. Permission for a second-tier appeal. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 52.13, permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. This minor dispute between neighbours raised no such point or reason.
4. The allegations that the earlier decision had been obtained by perjury or fraud were unsupported and had no real prospect of success. The issue concerning the landlord’s alleged grant of exclusive possession could not have affected the proceedings between the parties. The remaining grounds were speculative, unsupported by the material before the court and entirely without merit.
5. The applications for permission to appeal and for an extension of time were therefore refused. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be provided to the applicant at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 15 August 2003, refused the applications for permission to appeal and for an extension of time: [2003] EWCA Civ 1229.
• Worcester County Court, Mr Recorder Evans — Dismissed Mr Lewis’s appeal on 16 August 2002.
• Worcester County Court, District Judge McKenzie — Dismissed Mr Lewis’s claim on 29 April 2002.