Waterside Finance Ltd & Ors v Karim

An applicant for permission to appeal must identify an arguable basis for contending that the lower court’s order was wrong. Procedural irregularity is a separate possible ground of appeal. The Court of Appeal cannot reliably assess arguability where the applicant has not supplied the material that was before the lower court. In that situation, the proper course may be to adjourn the renewed application and direct production of the missing bundles, witness statements and transcript.

Mrs Karim and her husband had charged their house to secure a loan. Following an alleged default, receivers were appointed and the property was sold at auction. The auction purchaser assigned the contract to Mr Newman.

On 14 February 2012, Asplin J made an order requiring the defendants to withdraw objections to Mr Newman’s registration as proprietor and directing the Land Registry Registrar to give effect to his application. Lewison LJ refused permission to appeal on 1 May 2013. On renewal, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether Mrs Karim’s criticisms disclosed an arguable error in the order or a procedural irregularity, but the material before the High Court was incomplete.

Rimer LJ, sitting alone, adjourned the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. An appellant or proposed appellant must show that the order made below was wrong. Procedural irregularity provides a separate possible ground of challenge.
2. The Court of Appeal could not determine whether any of Mrs Karim’s extended criticisms disclosed an arguable point because the papers did not contain all the material before Asplin J. Missing material included court bundles, a further witness statement, Mrs Karim’s own witness statement and a transcript of the proceedings. The copy of an assignment was also incomplete until the missing page was supplied.
3. Assessment of arguability requires the appellate court to have the material on which the lower court acted. Without that material, the court cannot reliably assess whether the order was arguably wrong.
4. The application was therefore adjourned to the first convenient date after 17 October 2013. Mrs Karim was directed to lodge with the Civil Appeals Office copies of the bundles and witness statements used below, together with the transcript of the High Court proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lewison LJ refused permission to appeal on 1 May 2013. On renewal, Rimer LJ adjourned the application and directed the applicant to provide the missing materials.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: Asplin J made the order dated 14 February 2012 concerning withdrawal of objections to Mr Newman’s registration and the Land Registry’s implementation of that registration.