Anwar v Verhoeven

A renewed application for permission to appeal requires an arguable error in the order challenged. A complaint about an earlier, unappealed order cannot ordinarily be pursued through an appeal against a later case-management order. The court may fix a hearing date despite a litigant’s medical conditions, provided reasonable adjustments remain available. Directions identifying the documents required for a hearing do not, without more, prejudge the merits of an appeal or application. Where all proposed grounds lack merit, permission to appeal and any consequential stay should be refused.

Ms Anwar sought renewed permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Roberts in the County Court at Central London on 23 January 2025. The order fixed a hearing for her application and the respondent’s application for relief from sanctions, and gave directions for the hearing bundle and skeleton arguments.

Permission to appeal and a stay had previously been refused on the papers by Sir Stephen Stewart. The renewed application challenged the respondent’s ability to seek relief from sanctions, the hearing date in light of Ms Anwar’s medical conditions, and the bundle directions. The central issue was whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable error in the order of 23 January 2025.

1. Application dismissed. The three proposed grounds disclosed no merit. The consequential application for a stay therefore also failed.
2. The challenge to the respondent’s ability to apply for relief from sanctions could not succeed because permission for that application had been granted by an earlier order of 7 January 2025, which had not been appealed. In any event, allowing an application to be made did not determine its merits; those merits remained for the subsequent hearing.
3. The court was entitled to fix the hearing for 18 February 2025. It was not possible to accommodate every litigant’s preferred date. The court was nevertheless obliged to make reasonable adjustments for a litigant with disabilities. That obligation was not inconsistent with fixing the hearing date, since attendance remotely and appropriate breaks could be considered to address the applicant’s medical conditions and vertigo.
4. Directions requiring a paginated and indexed bundle and skeleton arguments merely specified the material required for the hearing. They did not amount to a decision on the merits or prejudge the outcome of the applications or any appeal.
5. The only appellant’s notice before the court challenged the order of 23 January 2025. No appeal against the order of 18 February 2025 was before the court. A stay was unnecessary because it had been sought only pending determination of the renewed application.

• County Court at Central London: On 23 January 2025, His Honour Judge Roberts fixed a hearing for the applicant’s application and the respondent’s application for relief from sanctions, and gave directions for the hearing materials.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Sir Stephen Stewart considered the application on the papers on 11 March 2025, refused permission to appeal and refused a stay, but allowed the applicant seven days to renew the application. The renewed application was dismissed by Mr Justice Garnham.