SS Global Ltd & Anor v Sava

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason. The need for guidance on the proper role of an appellate court in appeals from a Land Adjudicator may constitute such a reason, even where the underlying dispute is fact-sensitive. Particular concern arises where a judge who did not hear the evidence conducts a detailed transcript-based retrial and reverses credibility findings. Permission was granted to consider that appellate function. The court did not determine the substantive possessory-title issue or the distinction between dispossession and discontinuance.

The appeal arose from a decision of Mr Peter Leaver QC in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, sitting as a deputy judge. He had reversed a decision of the Land Adjudicator concerning whether possessory title had been acquired by possession of land by October 1991. The evidence about events in 1991 was unclear and the treatment of credibility differed between the adjudicator and the deputy judge.

The proposed second appeal raised technical issues concerning dispossession, discontinuance, recovery and possession. The central issue for permission was whether the need for guidance on the proper appellate approach in appeals from the Land Adjudicator provided a compelling reason to proceed.

1. Permission granted. The court granted permission to appeal because the application raised a compelling issue concerning the proper role of an appellate court in appeals from the Land Adjudicator.
2. On a second appeal, permission should not be given unless the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is some other compelling reason. The court was not certain that the underlying issue about dispossession, discontinuance, recovery and possession satisfied the first limb. The extensive factual material would ordinarily make that issue unsuitable for a second appeal.
3. The need for guidance in a relatively new appellate jurisdiction could nevertheless satisfy the compelling-reason limb. The court was concerned about an appellate judge examining the evidence in detail and effectively conducting a complete retrial over several days from transcripts.
4. It was particularly unusual for an appellate court which had not heard the evidence to reverse findings involving credibility. The Land Adjudicator regarded the applicant as generally honest, whereas the deputy judge formed the opposite view. The deputy judge had reminded himself of the guidance, including that in Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group [2003] 1 WLR 577, but it was arguable that he had failed to apply it in practice.
5. The court therefore directed that the appeal should be heard with Chancery expertise, preferably by two Chancery judges, although one member could be a High Court judge. The merits of the possessory-title dispute were not determined at this stage.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that guidance might be required on appellate review in appeals from the Land Adjudicator.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Mr Peter Leaver QC, sitting as a deputy judge, reversed the Land Adjudicator’s decision.
• Land Adjudicator. The original decision concerned whether possessory title had been acquired by possession by October 1991.