Patel & Anor v Patel & Anor

An appeal proceeds only on the issues for which permission has been granted. Where the permitted challenge is conceded to have no prospect of success, the appeal will be dismissed. A fresh point cannot ordinarily be introduced after substantial delay where the delay results from the appellant’s failure to appreciate the point earlier. Permission may also be refused where the sum in issue is insignificant in proportion to the underlying dispute and pursuing it would require further expense, an adjournment and disproportionate use of the court’s resources.

The appeal arose from declarations made by the Central London County Court concerning a property in Lavender Hill and the distribution of its net rent and sale proceeds. The judge declared that the property was held on trust for the parties in equal shares and ordered payment of approximately £436,415.

Permission to appeal was granted only on a limited accounting issue concerning whether sums of £14,000 and £24,000 spent on works had been properly taken into account. The appellants then sought to raise a separate issue concerning £6,000 and to obtain a further account. The central questions were whether the permitted appeal had any prospect of success and whether permission and an extension of time should be granted for the new issue.

1. The appeal was confined by the permission order to whether the defendants had been compensated through their drawings for £14,000 and £24,000 spent on works to the property. The permission did not extend to an argument that those contributions justified a share of the equity exceeding 50%, but only to a claim for repayment without interest.

2. The respondents’ accounting analysis demonstrated that the sums had already been fully taken into account in the expert’s division of the sale proceeds. The appellants conceded that the analysis was correct. The permitted appeal therefore had no prospect of success and was dismissed.

3. The proposed issue concerning a further £6,000 was treated as a fresh application for permission to appeal and an extension of time. The judgment had been handed down on 9 December 2008. The delay was substantial, and the appellant’s failure to appreciate that the point was available did not provide a sufficient explanation. Permission was refused on that ground.

4. Permission was also refused because the proposed appeal concerned a sum of £6,000 in a property venture involving approximately £830,000. Further proceedings would have required an adjournment and additional costs after approximately £170,000 had already been spent on the litigation. The proposed appeal was disproportionate and would waste the court’s time.

The appeal was dismissed and the fresh application to extend time was refused.

• Central London County Court: HHJ Bailey made declarations that the Lavender Hill property and net rent were held on trust for the parties in equal shares, and ordered payment of approximately £436,415. Judgment was handed down on 9 December 2008.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal, permission was limited to specified accounting issues. The appeal was dismissed. A fresh application for permission and an extension of time concerning a further £6,000 was refused: [2010] EWCA Civ 1242.