John Kenneth Greenwood & Anor v Ronald Patrick Pringle

An appellant seeking an extension of time for an appellant’s notice must address the seriousness and significance of the breach, the reason for default, and all the circumstances of the case. The Denton approach applies. Lack of legal representation, living abroad, age or poverty does not, without more, justify substantial non-compliance. An appeal cannot properly proceed where the appellant has failed to provide material needed to assess the proposed grounds, such as the lower court’s judgment. A statutory demand is inappropriate where the alleged debt is disputed on apparently substantial grounds. Such a dispute must ordinarily be resolved through ordinary proceedings, not insolvency process.

The appellants, acting in person, sought to appeal a County Court decision of DDJ Piddington dated 13 September 2021. That decision set aside a statutory demand for £1,421,500 on the basis that the alleged debt was disputed on apparently substantial grounds, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellants filed an appellant’s notice more than two years late, initially used the wrong form and filed it at the wrong court. They had also failed to lodge a transcript of the decision below or provide a UK address for service. The court therefore had to consider whether time should be extended and whether permission to appeal should be granted.

1. Applicable appeal requirements. Under CPR rules 52.21(3), 52.3(1), 52.6 and 52.12, an appeal requires both permission and a timely appellant’s notice. A first appeal requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. “Real prospect” means a prospect which is not unreal. The court retains a discretion even where the threshold is met.
2. Extension of time. Following R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and applying Denton v TH White, the court must assess: the seriousness and significance of the breach; why it occurred; and all the circumstances of the case. The delay here was exceptionally serious. No good reason had been shown. Being unrepresented, living abroad, being elderly or being impoverished did not, without an adequate explanation, justify the default.
3. Litigants in person and procedural compliance. The appellants were not entitled to a lower standard of compliance merely because they acted without lawyers. The court also confirmed the practical importance of a UK address for service and of lodging the lower court’s judgment or transcript. Without the transcript, the court could not assess whether the decision below was wrong or unjust under CPR rule 52.21(3).
4. Underlying statutory demand. The available material indicated that the alleged debt had been disputed on apparently substantial grounds. Under rule 10.5(5) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, a statutory demand is not an appropriate means of requiring payment of such a debt.
5. Unless order. The appellants were given one final opportunity to file the judgment transcript and provide a UK address for service by 4 pm on 1 March 2024. Failing both requirements, the applications would be struck out automatically. The question of extension of time and permission to appeal was deferred.

• Chancery Appeals List (ChD), High Court: An unless order was made requiring the appellants to file a transcript of DDJ Piddington’s decision and provide a UK address for service. The applications would be struck out automatically if they failed to comply.
• County Court at Southampton: On 13 September 2021, DDJ Piddington set aside the statutory demand for £1,421,500 and ordered the appellants to pay £4,680 costs.