Petros & Ors v Chaudhari & Anor

An appeal cannot ordinarily be brought against an order made by consent where the parties were represented and gave undertakings. A party seeking release from such undertakings must apply to the court that made the order, rather than challenge the order by appeal. An appeal from an interlocutory directions order will not succeed where the matters were within the judge’s case-management powers and no arguable ground of challenge is shown. Renewed applications for permission to appeal that are late, unsupported by explanation, and devoid of merit should be refused.

The defendants sought permission to appeal from two High Court orders in proceedings brought by doctors and a pathologist. The claimants alleged harassment, including publication and repetition of allegations concerning the death of the first defendant’s child.

The first application challenged a consent order made by Owen J on 21 October 2003. The order adjourned the substantive proceedings and recorded undertakings given by the defendants, who were represented by counsel. The second application challenged directions given by Pitchers J on 18 February 2004 concerning enforcement of those undertakings and the listing of the trial. The central questions were whether either order disclosed an arguable basis for appeal.

1. First application: Permission to appeal from the consent order was refused. The application was made about three months late without explanation. More fundamentally, the operative order merely adjourned the claims, and it was made by consent on undertakings given when the defendants were represented by counsel. There was no proper basis for appealing that order.
2. If the defendants wished to be released from the undertakings, the proper course was to apply to the High Court. The undertakings were distinct from the operative adjournment order. The court also endorsed Latham LJ’s view that there was no justification for appellate interference with the consent order.
3. Second application: Permission to appeal from Pitchers J’s directions order was refused. The order concerned the refusal of hearing rights to Dr Adoco, the fixing of the trial, the filing of supplementary skeleton arguments and the reservation of costs. Those matters fell within the judge’s case-management powers. Carnwath LJ was right to conclude on paper that the papers disclosed no arguable ground of challenge.
4. Both renewed applications were wholly devoid of merit and were dismissed. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed applications for permission to appeal from orders of Owen J dated 21 October 2003 and Pitchers J dated 18 February 2004 were refused; both applications were dismissed.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Owen J made a consent order on 21 October 2003. Pitchers J gave case-management directions on 18 February 2004.