Thames Water Utilities Ltd v London Borough of Bromley

An extension of time for lodging an appeal by way of case stated is discretionary and must be determined in the interests of justice. The court may consider the delay, its explanation, the merits and prospects of the proposed appeal, prejudice, public importance and finality. A statutory point will not necessarily justify an extension where the appeal is fact-sensitive, prospects are poor and no substantial public interest requires determination. A trial court’s costs order will rarely disclose an error of law absent gross disproportionality.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd appealed by way of case stated from its conviction by the Bromley Magistrates’ Court for failing to give a notice required by the Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The District Judge imposed a fine and ordered substantial prosecution costs. The application to state a case was made in time, but the appeal papers were lodged in the Administrative Court about eight weeks late.

The Divisional Court considered whether to extend time. The proposed appeal raised questions about further notices for works undertaken after permanent reinstatement and the costs order, but the lower court’s decision was substantially fact-dependent.

1. Extension of time refused. The court considered the interests of justice in light of the substantial delay. The delay was not intentional and counsel accepted responsibility, but those matters did not outweigh the other circumstances.
2. The proposed appeal had poor prospects. The District Judge had carefully assessed the evidence and found that the appellant’s conduct required further works notices under section 55(5) of the Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The findings of fact would have been difficult to challenge as perverse, and the statutory issue was not presented in a case offering a substantial public interest in authoritative determination.
3. The court was not persuaded that refusing an extension caused injustice. Finality was an aspect of the proper administration of justice. The fixed penalty procedure did not make the statutory construction issue redundant.
4. A challenge to the costs order had poor prospects. A trial court has a broad discretion over costs, and an appeal on a point of law would require a prima facie case that the order was wholly out of proportion to a proper sum.
5. Permission to appeal was refused. The respondents were awarded their costs, subject to detailed assessment unless agreed.

Mr Justice Cranston added that the procedural law governing case stated appeals was found in section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, rule 64 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, and the relevant Civil Procedure Rules practice direction.

The judgment states that the matter was an appeal by way of case stated from the Bromley Magistrates’ Court. The Divisional Court refused the application to extend time for lodging the appeal. Permission to appeal was refused, with any further application to be made to the Court of Appeal.