Hamid-Zadeh v Revens & Ors

An adjournment of a permission-to-appeal hearing may be refused where the applicant has had ample time to prepare but delayed obtaining transcripts or assembling the papers relied upon. The court may keep the application in the list while making urgent enquiries about late-arriving material. An application for permission to appeal is not ordinarily heard by the full Court of Appeal. If permission is granted, the judge deciding that application may determine whether the substantive appeal should be heard by two or three judges.

The applicant’s High Court claim against four defendants followed her eviction from a flat. Master Eyre struck out the claim. Nelson J granted permission to appeal on two heads concerning repair payments and goods removed from the flat. Bell J later reinstated those claims against the landlady but left the claims against the other defendants struck out. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal and then sought to adjourn the forthcoming permission hearing because transcripts and legal advice were unavailable. She also sought a three-judge court. The issues were whether the hearing should be delayed and whether the court should direct that constitution.

Application refused. The permission-to-appeal hearing was to remain in the list for the following Thursday.

1. The applicant had ample time after lodging the notice of appeal on 9 December 2002 to prepare the papers and obtain any transcript on which she wished to rely. Her recent order for the transcript, delayed enquiry about public funding, and wish to obtain legal advice did not justify further delay. Her complaints about the hearing before Bell J and the costs assessment did not alter that conclusion.
2. The court nevertheless directed that urgent enquiries be made to establish whether the transcript had been ordered and, if so, whether it could be delivered for consideration at the listed hearing. The judge hearing the permission application could then decide what use, if any, should be made of it.
3. The stricter statutory regime governing second appeals was noted as part of the procedural context under the Access to Justice Act, but no decision on the merits or on permission to appeal was made.
4. The request for a three-judge court was refused at this stage. It was the practice of the Court of Appeal not to convene the full court for permission applications. If permission were granted, the judge allowing the matter to proceed could decide whether the substantive appeal should be heard by two or three judges.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 2 June 2003, Brooke LJ refused the application to adjourn the permission-to-appeal hearing. The application remained listed, with urgent enquiries to be made about the transcript.
2. High Court: Bell J’s order of 25 November 2002 reinstated two heads of claim against the landlady but left the claims against the other defendants struck out. A notice of appeal was lodged on 9 December 2002.
3. High Court: Master Eyre struck out the claim. Nelson J subsequently granted permission to appeal in relation to the repair-payment and goods claims only.
4. County Court: Earlier possession proceedings had resulted in an order requiring the applicant to give up possession. No citation for that order is stated in the judgment.