Stevenson & Ors v London Borough of Southwark

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no realistic prospect of success and no other reason justifies an appeal. A finding of delay in determining an application does not establish misfeasance where the evidence shows that the delay resulted from failures to provide information and from the conduct of the applicants or other departments. Allegations of deliberate interference require evidence of the alleged acts and their improper motive.

The claimants applied for permission to appeal after the court dismissed their claim on 28 January 2011. The underlying claim concerned alleged wrongdoing and delay in dealing with a 1999 application to the defendant local authority. Written submissions were made for and against permission to appeal. The court considered whether the proposed grounds had a realistic prospect of success or whether there was any other reason for an appeal to be heard.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The grounds raised no realistic prospect of success and there was no other reason why an appeal should be heard.
2. The court maintained its findings on the alleged delay. The delay after the relevant officer left the Council was not caused by the alleged conduct of the individuals accused by the claimants. The application had been passed to another officer, and the evidence did not establish that the application had deliberately been held up.
3. Although there had been considerable delay, the principal cause was the failure to provide information requested for determination of the application. The claimants also took no active steps to pursue the application until January 2002, and further delay resulted from the claimants and departments other than Planning failing to provide required information.
4. The evidence did not establish any act of misfeasance by the alleged wrongdoer, or any misfeasance for which the defendant was responsible. The suggested motive of promoting a railway station was rejected because there was no realistic prospect at the material time of such a station affecting the claimants.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The underlying claim was dismissed on 28 January 2011. On 18 March 2011, permission to appeal from that decision was refused.