Scribes West Ltd v Anstalt & Anor (No 1)

An appeal court may allow an appeal only where the lower court’s decision was wrong, or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Grounds of appeal must identify whether each ground concerns law or fact. Revised requirements for permission applications, appeal bundles, core bundles, skeleton arguments, authorities and hearing papers must be followed strictly. Only documents reasonably necessary and directly relevant to the appeal should be included. The regime also promotes co-operation between the parties and permits costs sanctions, rejection of bundles or dismissal for non-compliance. The revised Practice Direction to CPR Part 52 took effect on 30 June 2004.

Scribes West Limited appealed from a decision of Judge Mayer in the Central London County Court. The Court of Appeal heard argument on a jurisdictional issue but stated that judgment on that issue would be delivered later. In the meantime, the court used the case to explain substantial revisions to the Practice Direction governing civil appeals, including requirements for permission hearings, appeal bundles, skeleton arguments, authorities and filing deadlines. The central issue addressed in this judgment was the practical operation and enforcement of those revised appellate procedures.

Lord Justice Brooke delivered the judgment. Lord Justices Mance and Dyson agreed. The court did not determine the jurisdictional issue in this judgment; it stated that judgment on that issue would follow.

1. Grounds of appeal. Under CPR 52.11(3), an appeal may be allowed only where the decision below was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. The revised Practice Direction requires the grounds to explain why that test is met and to identify, for each ground, whether it raises law or fact.
2. Permission applications. A represented appellant requesting oral reconsideration of a refusal of permission must provide, at least four days before the hearing, a written statement of the points relied on, the reasons permission should be granted and, where relevant, confirmation of compliance with the applicable funding requirements. Respondents must receive notice of permission hearings but need attend only if requested. Where attendance is requested, the appellant must provide the appeal bundle within seven days and initially bear the relevant cost.
3. Bundles and documents. An appeal bundle must contain the specified formal documents and only other documents reasonably considered necessary for the appeal. Extraneous material must be excluded. Affidavits, witness statements, experts’ reports and exhibits may be included only where directly relevant. A represented appellant must provide the required certificate. Missing documents must be identified, explained, estimated and filed as soon as reasonably possible.
4. Court of Appeal procedure. Where an appeal bundle exceeds 500 pages, a core bundle must be prepared within the prescribed period, contain documents central to the appeal and not exceed 150 pages. The revised provisions also regulate respondent additions, supplemental bundles, skeleton arguments and late arguments. Authorities must generally be limited to ten, marked at the relevant passages and filed seven days before the hearing, subject to the short-notice exception.
5. Compliance. All papers needed for the hearing should be filed at least seven days beforehand. Non-compliance may lead to disallowance of costs, rejection of a bundle, a special costs order, referral to a presiding Lord Justice or dismissal of the application or appeal.

The court also noted changes consolidating listing and handed-down judgment procedures, and enabling applications for permission to appeal to the House of Lords to be dealt with on written submissions in appropriate cases.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Heard an appeal from the Central London County Court. The court reserved judgment on the jurisdictional issue and issued this explanatory judgment on revised appellate procedures.
• Central London County Court: Decision of Judge Mayer under appeal; the operative result and citation are not stated.