Tom Johnson v Bank of Scotland PLC

Under CPR rule 52.14, public funding for a transcript requires both financial eligibility and necessity in the interests of justice. The court retains a discretion even where both conditions are met. For an appeal, a transcript of the judgment will ordinarily be sufficient because it records the reasons relevant to permission and the substantive appeal. A full-hearing transcript requires specific, particularised reasons showing why it is necessary. General allegations of unfairness, disability, intimidation, or a desire to test credibility do not suffice. A party remains entitled to obtain a transcript at private expense.

The claimant appealed from District Judge Woodburn’s dismissal of his application to set aside District Judge Wales’s order striking out his claim. Permission to appeal had not yet been determined because the claimant lacked a transcript or other note of the reasons given at the hearing.

District Judge Woodburn had authorised a transcript of his judgment at public expense. The claimant sought public funding for the entire 40-minute hearing, relying on his financial circumstances, severe hearing loss, anxiety and alleged unfairness during the hearing. The issue was whether CPR rule 52.14 justified funding the full proceedings transcript.

1. Application refused. The court declined to direct that the whole hearing be transcribed at public expense. A transcript of the judgment alone had already been authorised and was sufficient for the immediate appellate decisions.
2. CPR rule 39.9(3) gives a party or other person a right to obtain a transcript on payment of the authorised charge. CPR rule 52.14 creates a separate power to direct provision at public expense for the purposes of an appeal.
3. Under CPR rule 52.14(2), the requesting party must establish both that the financial condition in sub-paragraph (a) is satisfied and that obtaining the transcript is necessary in the interests of justice under sub-paragraph (b). Satisfying both conditions does not compel an order: the word “may” in rule 52.14(1) confers a discretion requiring consideration of all the circumstances.
4. Following Anwer v Central Bridging Loans Ltd [2022] 1 WLR 4917, the interests-of-justice requirement is an important control on the use of public funds. Usually, the judge’s reasons are what matters for an appeal. The greater cost and limited utility of a full transcript therefore weighed against the application.
5. The claimant’s reasons did not meet that standard. His alleged inability to participate was inconsistent with the hearing record and was not raised contemporaneously. Allegations that he might have heard unfair imputations, or that his competence had been questioned, were vague and amounted to fishing. A transcript sought to support veracity was irrelevant because the underlying orders concerned procedural adequacy of the particulars of claim, not the merits or credibility of the parties. Severe disability alone did not establish necessity in the interests of justice.
6. The claimant had not complied with CPR Practice Direction 52B, paragraph 4.3, which contemplated making the application within the appellant’s notice. Although the omission could cause difficulty, the court dealt with the request as if it had been included. If the claimant wished to obtain the remainder of the hearing transcript, he could commission and pay for it himself, subject to the stated deadline and any application for an extension.

1. High Court (Chancery Division): HHJ Paul Matthews dismissed the request for a publicly funded transcript of the whole hearing, while confirming that the judgment transcript should be provided at public expense.
2. Business List (ChD): District Judge Woodburn dismissed the claimant’s application to set aside District Judge Wales’s strike-out order and refused permission to appeal.
3. High Court (Chancery Division): District Judge Wales struck out the claim for inadequate and non-compliant particulars of claim.