Unique Pub Properties Ltd v Gregarious Ltd

Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 prevents an appeal against a refusal of permission to appeal. A complaint that the lower judge failed properly to consider permission, or the underlying merits, cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal.

Where an earlier judge has left extension of time undecided, a later judge may determine that issue. In possession cases, non-compliance with appeal time limits may materially prejudice the landowner. The length and explanation of delay, the applicant’s representation, and the overall justice of granting an extension are relevant. Joinder for the limited purpose of a costs order is discretionary.

Unique Pub Properties Ltd applied to challenge a Central London County Court order made by Her Honour Judge Baucher concerning permission to appeal and an extension of time. The applicant also raised procedural complaints concerning joinder. An earlier paper decision by Judge Saggerson had refused permission because there was no arguable case, but had not determined the extension issue.

The central questions were whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge and, if so, whether the extension of time and permission decisions disclosed any appealable error.

1. Jurisdiction. Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that no appeal lies against a refusal of permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. A complaint that the lower judge had failed to assess permission, or the underlying merits, could not confer jurisdiction. This was fatal to the application.
2. Extension of time. The earlier paper decision had not determined the extension application. Judge Saggerson had put that issue aside and decided only that there was no arguable case for permission. It was consequently open to Judge Baucher to determine the extension question.
3. Judge Baucher had approached that question properly. In possession proceedings, failure to observe appeal time limits is materially prejudicial to the landowner where the person seeking to appeal remains in possession. The delay was significant, there was no substantial explanation, and neither lack of representation nor the applicant’s personal difficulties justified special indulgence. The conclusion that the interests of justice did not require an extension was plainly open to the judge.
4. The joinder issue was not decisive. Judge Baucher was nevertheless entitled, in the exercise of her discretion, to join the applicant for the purposes of the costs order.
5. The application could not satisfy the second appeals test and, in any event, could not satisfy even the first appeals test. Permission was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application challenging the Central London County Court’s order was refused. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against refusal of permission to appeal.
• Central London County Court: Her Honour Judge Baucher dealt with the extension of time, permission to appeal and joinder for costs. No citation for the order is stated in the judgment.