First Plus Financial Group Plc v Pithers

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.

A dispute concerning a family home may be highly important to the parties, but that fact alone does not satisfy the compelling-reason requirement. Where the proposed appeal concerns findings specific to the parties’ mortgage, arrears and ability to maintain payments, and raises no unsettled point of law, permission should be refused.

The applicant sought renewed permission to appeal against the dismissal by HHJ Gosnell in the Leeds County Court of his appeal from a possession order made by District Judge Woodhead for mortgage arrears.

The first appeal had been dismissed on 16 January 2012. The renewed application was considered on the papers because the applicant did not attend and his further adjournment request had been refused. The central issue was whether the proposed second appeal met the more demanding permission threshold.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Permission for a second appeal could be granted only if the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or that there was some other compelling reason for the court to hear it. The second-appeal threshold was therefore more difficult to satisfy than the threshold for the first appeal.
2. The applicant’s challenge concerned the particular mortgage, the admitted arrears, the continuing monthly instalments and the practical difficulty of reducing the arrears while making inadequate payments. The case had been decided on its own facts. The lower judge had directed himself correctly and had reached a conclusion open to him on those facts.
3. The fact that possession concerned the applicant’s family home made the matter important to those involved. It did not, without more, constitute a compelling reason for a second appeal.
4. No point of law remained unresolved. The proposed appeal raised no general or important point of principle or practice, and no special feature of the facts justified allowing it to proceed. The reasons previously given by Lewison LJ for refusing permission were accepted as comprehensive and unanswerable.

The application was accordingly refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lewison LJ refused the initial paper application for permission on 25 September 2012, while maintaining a stay pending any renewed application.
• Leeds County Court: HHJ Gosnell dismissed the applicant’s first appeal on 16 January 2012.
• Leeds County Court: District Judge Woodhead made an order for possession on 1 June 2011 on the grounds of mortgage arrears.