Ceredigion County Council (Respondents) v. Jones (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants)

On a proposed leapfrog appeal under sections 12 and 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, a conditional grant of leave does not immediately extinguish the applicant’s right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. For section 13(2), “leave is granted” means an unconditional grant, or a conditional grant whose conditions are accepted or not unequivocally rejected.

The House may propose conditions restricting the points to be argued or governing costs. If the applicant rejects those conditions and unequivocally declines to pursue the leapfrog appeal, it remains free to exercise its ordinary appellate rights. The procedure should nevertheless ensure that appeals against the same order do not proceed simultaneously at different appellate levels.

Children living in Ceredigion challenged the refusal to fund their transport to a Welsh-speaking school in Pembrokeshire. Collins J upheld both grounds of challenge and quashed the local authority’s decision: [2004] EWHC 1376 (Admin). He also granted a certificate enabling an application for a direct appeal to the House of Lords under sections 12 and 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969.

An appeal committee proposed to permit the direct appeal on one issue only and subject to a costs condition. The authority objected to those terms, withdrew its petition and appealed to the Court of Appeal. By a majority, the Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction: [2005] EWCA Civ 986.

The issue before the House was whether the conditional decision on the leapfrog petition had engaged section 13(2), thereby excluding any appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The Appellate Committee held that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to that court so that the authority’s substantive appeal could proceed.

2. The Appellate Committee explained that sections 12 and 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 are intended to save time and expense by removing an intermediate appellate tier. Where the House grants leave, the dispute should be resolved in one appellate forum. The legislation should not be construed so as to permit simultaneous appeals against the same order in the House and the Court of Appeal.

3. The Appellate Committee held that the House may propose terms when dealing with a leave application. Those terms may prevent argument on a particular point or address costs. Such restrictions are not necessarily irrevocable, having regard to section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 and Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349.

4. The Appellate Committee held that a prospective appellant may reject proposed terms. An applicant under section 13 must not be deprived of an otherwise available appeal to the Court of Appeal merely because the House is willing to entertain a leapfrog appeal only upon conditions which the applicant finds unacceptable. Where the conditions remain unacceptable, the appropriate course is for the applicant to invite the appeal committee to refuse leave altogether.

5. The Appellate Committee construed “leave is granted” in section 13(2) as referring to an unconditional grant, or to a conditional grant whose conditions have been accepted or have not been unequivocally rejected. Only at that point does section 13(2)(a) extinguish the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

6. The authority’s withdrawal of its petition unequivocally demonstrated that it would not pursue a direct appeal on the proposed terms. It was therefore free to pursue a full appeal in the Court of Appeal, including both grounds upon which the High Court had quashed the panel’s decision.

1. House of Lords: The House unanimously dismissed the appeal from the jurisdictional ruling and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal: [2007] UKHL 24.
2. Court of Appeal: By a majority, the court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the local authority’s appeal after the authority had rejected the proposed terms of a direct appeal and withdrawn its petition: [2005] EWCA Civ 986, [2005] 1 WLR 3626.
3. High Court, Administrative Court: Collins J upheld both grounds of the children’s judicial review claim, quashed the local authority’s decision, granted a certificate under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969, and conditionally granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal: [2004] EWHC 1376 (Admin), [2004] ELR 506.