Amir Khodaparast v Peter Mark Arnstein

Permission to appeal requires an appellant to identify an arguable error in the decision below. An appellate court does not rehear the arguments or subject the lower court’s decision to minute analysis merely to test its correctness, including where the appellant is unrepresented. Intervention is justified only where the lower court applied the wrong legal test, made a factual finding unavailable on the evidence, or reached an evaluative judgment that was otherwise wrong. Previous decisions which were not under appeal cannot be reopened in an appeal against a later costs order.

The appellant, who had acted in person, sought renewed permission to appeal against a costs order made by HHJ Monty KC in the Central London County Court on 6 January 2023. The order required him to pay costs incurred in litigation involving Coplexia Collaborative, after the company’s defence and counterclaim had been struck out and he had been added as a defendant for costs purposes.

The first application for permission was refused on the papers by Sir Stephen Stewart. The renewed application challenged the judge’s findings, the conduct of the hearing, the alleged inequality of arms, and the judge’s failure to recuse himself. The central issue was whether any arguable ground showed that the costs decision was wrong.

1. Renewed application refused. The court refused permission to appeal because the appellant had not identified any arguable ground of appeal.
2. The appeal concerned only the costs order dated 6 January 2023. Earlier decisions of the same or other judges could not be reopened in this appeal, particularly where they had not themselves been successfully appealed.
3. An appellant seeking permission must identify an arguable error in the decision below. It is not the function of an appellate court, even where the appellant is unrepresented, to conduct a minute analysis of the judgment to discover possible errors or to give more time for objections to be formulated.
4. An appeal is not a rehearing of submissions made below. Appellate intervention is justified only where the lower court applied the wrong test, made a factual finding that was not open to it on the evidence, or reached an evaluative judgment that was otherwise wrong.
5. The alleged inequality of arms did not establish unfairness. Representation on one side of litigation, without more, is not unusual, and the papers and transcripts showed that the appellant had been able to present his points. The difficulty was that the points lacked merit.
6. The complaint that the judge should have recused himself was also unfounded. The court found no basis for suggesting apparent or actual unfairness requiring recusal.
7. The lower court was not required to address every submission separately, especially where the submissions were exceptionally lengthy and diffuse. The first-instance judge’s comprehensive findings and reasoning disclosed no proper basis for characterising the costs order as wrong.

• Central London County Court: HHJ Monty KC made a costs order against the appellant on 6 January 2023.
• High Court (King's Bench Division): Sir Stephen Stewart refused permission to appeal on the papers. On renewal, Mr Justice Chamberlain again refused permission to appeal.