Chedington Events Limited v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor

Under the current Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a lower court may direct the period for filing an appellant’s notice only at the hearing at which the decision under appeal was made, or at an adjournment of that hearing. Once that hearing and any adjournment have ended, the lower court has no power to make a retrospective direction extending time. The application must instead be made to the appeal court under rule 52.15(1). Earlier authorities decided under materially different wording do not alter that conclusion.

The claimant had obtained judgment for possession and mesne profits. After the quantum judgment was handed down, the defendants sought extra time to obtain a transcript and file an appellant’s notice for a proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The claimant argued that the High Court retained jurisdiction to extend the time. The court considered the relationship between rules 52.3(2), 52.12 and 52.15, the 2021 amendment to rule 52.12(2)(a), and earlier authorities decided under the former rules. The central issue was whether the lower court could still direct a longer filing period after the hand-down and consequential written submissions had concluded.

1. Application refused. The defendants had not sought, and the court had not given, a direction under rule 52.12(2)(a) extending the period for filing an appellant’s notice.
2. Rules 52.3(2), 52.12 and 52.15 address distinct but connected matters. Permission to appeal may be sought from the lower court or the appeal court. Where permission is sought from the appeal court, it must be requested in an appellant’s notice. The default period for filing that notice is 21 days, unless the lower court directs otherwise at the relevant hearing or an adjournment.
3. The 2021 amendment materially restricted the timing of the lower court’s power. The direction must now be given at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed was made, or at an adjournment of that hearing. The present court’s hand-down and consequential written submissions operated as the relevant hearing and adjournment, but that process had ended and the court had reserved judgment only on consequential matters unrelated to permission to appeal.
4. The earlier decisions in Aujla v Sanghera, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Ltd and Dalkia Utilities Services plc v Celtech International Ltd were made under materially different wording. They therefore did not establish a continuing power under the amended rule. Aujla v Sanghera was distinguishable in statutory context, although it explained the former position.
5. The defendants had to apply to the Court of Appeal for the extension. The High Court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested direction.

The judgment records that liability had previously been determined by the same judge in [2022] EWHC 365 (Ch), with permission to appeal refused by the Court of Appeal on 7 April 2022. Quantum was determined in a later judgment, [2023] EWHC 2804 (Ch). The present decision concerned the High Court’s jurisdiction to extend time for a proposed appeal from the quantum judgment.