Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd

A second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. A fact-specific challenge to an inference that an authorised vehicle user had actual or implied authority to bind a company will not ordinarily satisfy that threshold. Where an applicant has been notified of a renewed permission hearing but fails to attend without explanation, the court may proceed and refuse the application. The application may also be refused on its substantive merits where the lower court’s finding was open to it on the evidence.

Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd concerned a £100 parking charge arising from the parking of a hired vehicle on land subject to a parking regime. A District Judge found that the unidentified driver had authority from AJH Films Ltd to enter into the parking contract and incur the charge. His Honour Judge Worster dismissed the appeal, treating the District Judge’s reference to apparent authority as a mistaken description of an actual-authority finding. AJH Films Ltd then made a renewed written application for permission to bring a second appeal. No one attended the hearing. The issues were whether the application could be dismissed for non-attendance and whether the proposed appeal met the second-appeal criteria.

Lord Justice Richards refused the renewed application.

1. Non-attendance. The applicant had notice of the hearing, which was listed for not before 2.30 pm. By about 3.20 pm neither the applicant’s director nor anyone else had attended, and no explanation had been given. The court could properly proceed and refuse the application on that ground.
2. Substantive merits. The challenge alleged an error of law in finding that the unidentified driver had authority to bind the company to the parking contract. The District Judge’s earlier reasoning showed that she had found actual authority, notwithstanding the mistaken use of the word apparent in her conclusion. The Circuit Judge was entitled to regard that finding as an inference open on the evidence. The authorised use of the vehicle also supported the conclusion that the driver had at least implied authority to incur the parking charges.
3. Second-appeal threshold. Lord Justice Richards agreed with Patten LJ’s reasons for refusing permission on the papers. The proposed appeal was concerned with the particular facts and did not raise an important point of principle or practice. Nor was there any other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard. The application was therefore refused both for non-attendance and because it lacked substantive merit.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal, the application was refused for non-attendance and lack of substantive merit: [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.
• Circuit Judge: His Honour Judge Worster dismissed the appeal from the District Judge’s decision.
• District Judge: Found that the unidentified driver had actual authority from the defendant company to enter into the parking contract and incur the parking charge.