Chimarides v Chimarides

Permission to appeal may be refused where the applicant does not attend the hearing below, fails to identify the application decided there, and provides no coherent basis for challenging the order. The appellate court must have sufficient material to identify an arguable ground of appeal. An unclear attempt to revisit earlier orders does not cure the defect where the application formally challenges a later order. An application for an extension of time may likewise be refused where no proper basis for extending time is shown.

The applicant sought permission to appeal an order made by Her Honour Judge Coates in the Brighton County Court on 8 May 2006. That order dismissed the applicant’s application because he had not attended and required him to pay the respondent’s costs. The applicant also sought an extension of time to file an appellant’s notice.

The Court of Appeal was not supplied with the original notice of application. The transcript and grounds appeared to refer variously to earlier decisions concerning children, procedure, witnesses and ancillary relief. The judgment also recorded an earlier application dealt with by Wilson LJ. Neither party appeared before the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the material disclosed any basis for granting permission to appeal the order of 8 May 2006.

Application for permission. Lord Justice Scott Baker refused permission to appeal.

1. The application formally challenged the order of 8 May 2006, but the applicant had not attended the hearing at which Judge Coates dismissed his application.
2. The Court of Appeal had not been given the original notice of application. The transcript did not make the nature of that application clear, and the applicant had not explained to the appellate court what application had been made or what decision required review.
3. The grounds of appeal appeared to raise complaints about earlier orders and proceedings, including matters concerning the children, alleged procedural irregularities and ancillary relief. They did not establish an arguable basis for an appeal against the order actually under challenge.
4. In those circumstances, the court had no proper basis on which to grant permission. The applicant’s failure to attend and failure to provide sufficient explanation were decisive procedural defects.
5. An application for an extension of time was also refused. The final order was that both the application for permission to appeal and the application for an extension of time to file the appellant’s notice were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 8 March 2007, permission to appeal and an extension of time to file the appellant’s notice were refused: [2007] EWCA Civ 320.
• Brighton County Court: On 8 May 2006, Her Honour Judge Coates dismissed the applicant’s application for non-attendance and ordered him to pay the respondent’s costs.