Garry Jarvis v Metro Taxis Limited

An appeal from a county court decision made after an earlier appeal is a second appeal if the later decision was made on the hearing of that appeal. That remains so where the appellate judge allows the first appeal, sets aside the original decision and then remakes the decision by rehearing the claim rather than remitting it. The relevant question is therefore not simply whether the appellant has already had one appeal, but whether the challenged decision was made on the hearing of an appeal. Such an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal and is subject to the enhanced second-appeal permission test.

Mr Jarvis brought a small claim against Metro Taxis Limited. A district judge dismissed it. On appeal, HHJ Sephton KC allowed the appeal because the district judge had treated submissions by the defendant’s representative as evidence. Instead of remitting the claim, HHJ Sephton reheard it himself and dismissed the claim.

Mr Jarvis sought to appeal that decision to the High Court. Turner J declined jurisdiction, considering the decision to be a second appeal which could be brought only in the Court of Appeal. The issue before Pepperall J was whether the rehearing and dismissal constituted a decision made on the hearing of the first appeal.

1. The application to set aside Turner J’s order was dismissed. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal. Any appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.

2. Ordinarily, an appeal from a circuit judge sitting in the county court lies to the High Court under Practice Direction 52A, para 3.5 and article 5 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016, subject to the ordinary permission test in CPR rule 52.6.

3. Where a county court decision was itself made on appeal, article 6 of the 2016 Order and CPR rule 52.7 apply. Permission must be obtained from the Court of Appeal, and the enhanced test requires both a real prospect of success and an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason.

4. The critical question is whether the challenged decision was made on the hearing of an appeal. It is not decisive that the first appeal was allowed, or that the appellate judge dismissed the underlying claim rather than dismissing the appeal.

5. The authorities concerning the Upper Tribunal, including JD (Congo), PR (Sri Lanka), MM (Unfairness) Sudan and AEB, established that where an appellate tribunal sets aside the first-instance decision and remakes it, a further challenge is an appeal from the decision made on the appeal. Although those authorities arose under different statutory provisions and did not determine venue, the same reasoning applied by analogy. HHJ Sephton’s rehearing was therefore part of the appellate process, and his dismissal of the claim was a decision made on the hearing of the appeal.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Turner J declined jurisdiction on the papers by order dated 14 March 2024. Pepperall J dismissed the application to set aside that order and held that any appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.