Santander UK Plc v Harrison & Anor

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case. An apparent error in recording a party’s submission does not invalidate the lower court’s decision where it does not affect the reasoning on the issues decided. A proposed argument concerning whether credit was provided as a cash loan lacked a real prospect of success. Amendments to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 also reduced the issue’s wider significance.

The defendants sought permission to bring a second appeal from a decision of Males J in the Queen’s Bench Division. The dispute concerned whether credit in the form of a cash loan had been provided in circumstances involving the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The defendants also alleged that the judge had inaccurately recorded one of their submissions. The Court of Appeal considered whether the second-appeal threshold was met and whether the proposed cash-loan analysis had any real prospect of success.

Application refused. Permission to bring a second appeal was not granted.

1. Under CPR 52.13(2), permission for a second appeal requires the proposed appeal to raise an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The court was not satisfied that either limb was met [1]–[2].
2. The issue was not considered likely to create numerous problems in the operation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition, amendments to that Act meant that the point was unlikely to be important in a great number of cases [2].
3. Although Males J appeared to have misstated the borrowers’ submission about the consequences of their argument, that error did not vitiate the reasons contained in the remaining paragraphs of his judgment [3].
4. There was no real prospect of success in arguing that the correct analysis was that credit in the form of a cash loan had been provided. Males J had correctly approached the issue and was entitled to reach the conclusion that, in the circumstances, the transaction did not involve such credit [4]. Permission was therefore refused [5]–[6].

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 3 July 2013, permission for a second appeal was refused: [2013] EWCA Civ 1362.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division — The application concerned a decision of Males J. No citation for that decision was stated.