Fox v Hall

Permission to appeal requires more than disagreement with the first-instance decision. The applicant must identify an arguable error of law with a reasonable prospect of success, such as failure to consider relevant evidence or reaching a conclusion that no reasonable judge could reach. A judge need not find fraud merely because it is alleged, or follow conclusions reached in earlier litigation where the issues and evidence differ. Where the grounds merely repeat arguments rejected below and the findings are supported by the evidence and reasons, permission should be refused.

Mr Kevin Fox applied for permission to appeal from the judgment of His Honour Judge Steven Davies QC dated 13 August 2014. The judge had rejected claims against Michael Hall for payment under an assignment relating to the Wilson Agreement, made in March 2002.

Mr Fox alleged bias, procedural unfairness, failure to find fraud, failure to follow conclusions reached in earlier litigation, and error in holding that his claim was barred. The central issue was whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable legal error with a reasonable prospect of success.

1. Application dismissed. Lady Justice Hallett found no ground with a reasonable prospect of success. An applicant must do more than assert that the first-instance judge was wrong. The applicant must show a proper case that the judge ignored relevant evidence or reached a conclusion that no reasonable judge could reach.
2. The complaints of bias and unfairness substantially repeated submissions made below. The judge was not obliged, on the evidence, to make findings of fraud. Nor was he required to follow precisely the conclusions of His Honour Judge Seymour QC in earlier litigation. The issues and evidence differed, so the judge had not infringed issue estoppel.
3. The judge was entitled to conclude that the claim was statute barred and that section 32 did not apply. The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the findings were supported by the evidence and sufficient reasons, and concluded that they were.
4. Permission to appeal was therefore refused and the application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 17 June 2015, permission to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: His Honour Judge Steven Davies QC rejected Mr Fox's claims in a judgment dated 13 August 2014.