Grace & Anor v Blackhorse Ltd

Permission to appeal may be limited to issues that are properly arguable. Grounds with no realistic prospect of success should be refused unless there is a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to consider them. Where two claims under the Data Protection Act 1998 raise the same limitation issue, permission may extend to both and the notice of appeal may be amended accordingly. An issue under sections 90 and 91 of the Consumer Credit Act is arguable where repossession occurred without a written order requiring possession by a specified date, and the only written order was made after repossession and required delivery up.

The applicants sought permission to appeal from a decision of Chester County Court before HHJ Halbert. The proposed appeal concerned whether claims under the Data Protection Act 1998 were barred by limitation and whether the second applicant’s caravan had been repossessed without an order sufficient to engage the consequences under sections 90 and 91 of the Consumer Credit Act.

The Court of Appeal considered whether permission should extend to the second applicant’s corresponding data-protection claim, whether the repossession issue was arguable, and whether the remaining grounds met the permission threshold.

1. Application granted in part. Limited permission to appeal was granted on two issues.
2. The first issue was whether either applicant had a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 that was not barred by limitation. The notice of appeal was permitted to be amended to raise the second applicant’s claim because both claims raised the same issues.
3. The second issue was whether the second applicant’s caravan had been repossessed where there was no order entitling the respondent to retake it, so that the consequences specified in sections 90 and 91 of the Consumer Credit Act might apply. The issue was arguable because there was no written order requiring possession by a specified date. The only written order had been made after repossession and gave judgment for delivery up, which had already occurred.
4. Permission was refused on all other grounds. They had no realistic prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to consider them.
5. The notice of appeal was to be amended, and the arguments before the Court of Appeal were to be recast so that they included only the matters for which permission had been granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — on an application arising from the Chester County Court decision before HHJ Halbert, limited permission to appeal was granted on two issues and refused on the remaining grounds.