Netjets Management Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee & Anor

At the permission stage, the court considers whether the proposed appeal is arguable. Permission may be granted where the appeal raises a novel jurisdictional issue with sufficient substance to require consideration by the Court of Appeal. In a recognition application concerning a group of workers, the characteristics of that group may be relevant to whether the Central Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction. An arguable case that the Committee failed to address those characteristics justified permission, without determining the appeal’s merits.

The appellant sought permission to appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Supperstone in the Administrative Court. The underlying proceedings were a judicial review of the Central Arbitration Committee’s decision in a claim for recognition. The proposed appeal concerned the extent to which the characteristics of the relevant group of workers should inform the Committee’s jurisdiction. Permission had previously been refused on paper by Sir David Keene on the basis that the judge had made no error of law. Lord Justice Elias reconsidered the application.

Permission granted.

1. At this stage the court had to decide only whether the proposed appeal was arguable.
2. The case raised an unusual jurisdictional question in the context of an application for recognition relating to a group of workers. The characteristics of that group might bear on whether the Central Arbitration Committee had jurisdiction.
3. There was an arguable case that the Committee had not focused sufficiently on those characteristics and might have reached a different decision had it done so. The point had not previously been considered by the Court of Appeal, and there was sufficient substance to justify permission.
4. The appeal was to be expedited and was expected to take no more than one day before a constitution of three Court of Appeal judges.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (Mr Justice Supperstone): decision challenged by the proposed appeal; citation not stated in the judgment.
• Permission stage: Sir David Keene had refused permission on paper, stating that there was no error of law.