Baxter v Mannion

Under Rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. The proposed arguments on paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, including the mistake point and burden of proof, met that threshold. Permission was granted without limitation. The court did not determine the underlying merits.

Baxter v Mannion concerned a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal. A Deputy Adjudicator to HM Land Registry had ordered the Chief Land Registrar to give effect to Mannion’s application to alter the register of title number CB304178, relating to a field in Chatteris, Cambridgeshire. Henderson J dismissed Baxter’s first appeal on 18 March 2010.

Baxter sought to raise issues concerning adverse possession and the Land Registration Act 2002. The proposed issues included the construction of paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 6, described as the mistake point, and the burden of proof. The question was whether those issues justified permission for a second appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the renewed application for permission to appeal. The order did not decide the substantive dispute or the merits of the proposed arguments.

1. Second-appeal threshold. Rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules required the court to consider whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or whether there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. Issues warranting permission. The court was persuaded that the proposed arguments raised two important points of principle or practice concerning the new land-registration legislation. The principal issue was the construction of paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 6, including the mistake point. The second concerned the burden of proof.
3. Renewed application. The paper refusal had treated the factual grounds as unsuitable for a second appeal and saw no prospect of success on the construction point. Having considered further written and oral material, Mummery LJ concluded that the case should exceptionally be heard by a full court.
4. Order. Permission was granted without limitation. The court directed that the appeal should be heard by a constitution including at least two Chancery Lords Justices, with an estimate of one day.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 12 August 2010, the court granted Baxter’s renewed application for permission to appeal: [2010] EWCA Civ 1013.
2. High Court, Chancery Division — Henderson J dismissed Baxter’s appeal from the Deputy Adjudicator’s decision on 18 March 2010.
3. Deputy Adjudicator to HM Land Registry — On 5 February 2010, the Deputy Adjudicator ordered the Chief Land Registrar to give effect to Mannion’s application to alter the register.