Law v Raleys Solicitors

Permission for a second appeal is confined to cases involving an important point of principle or practice not previously determined by the Court of Appeal, or another compelling reason. A case-management decision about late-disclosed evidence does not meet that threshold merely because the evidence was deliberately withheld. The rules do not impose an automatic sanction prohibiting use of such evidence. Where the lower court has exercised a permissible discretion on the facts and in accordance with the overriding objective, an appellate court should assess the substance of its reasoning and need not demand exact or precise vocabulary.

The claimant pursued a modest industrial-injury claim. Liability was admitted, but quantum was disputed. The District Judge found that the defendants had deliberately withheld Facebook and surveillance material until after the claimant’s witness statement, yet permitted them to rely on it.

The claimant sought permission for a second appeal, arguing that deliberate non-disclosure required exclusion of the evidence. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed grounds raised an important point of principle or practice, or disclosed another compelling reason, under the Civil Procedure Rules.

1. The renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal was dismissed. The nine proposed grounds principally challenged the District Judge’s decision on its facts and did not raise an important point of principle or practice.
2. Under CPR 52 rule 13, permission for a second appeal requires either an important point of principle or practice not previously determined by the Court of Appeal, or some other compelling reason. Neither limb applied.
3. The Court rejected the suggested automatic consequence of deliberate non-disclosure. The argument, relying on Watford Petroleum Ltd v Interoil Trading SA & others [2003] EWCA Civ 1417, was that withheld documentary or surveillance evidence must inevitably be excluded. The authorities and rules did not lead to that conclusion. The admissibility of such evidence remained a matter for the lower court’s case-management discretion.
4. Applying the principles of Piglowska, the District Judge’s judgment did not have to use exact and precise vocabulary. It was comprehensive and adequately addressed the relevant arguments. The decision was available on the facts and accorded with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules to deal with claims justly, proportionately and efficiently.

The renewed application was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 April 2016, dismissed the renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal.
• Leeds Combined Court Centre: District Judge Pema’s order of 23 December 2014 permitted the defendants to rely on Facebook and surveillance evidence not disclosed before witness statements.