Paul Cooper & Anor v Tamer Hassan Abu Ala Hassan Ibrahim & Anor

Under CPR 52.18, an appeal may be struck out only where there is a compelling reason. Strike-out is a draconian sanction and should be a last resort. Where non-compliance with an appellate order is serious but does not justify immediate strike-out, the court may impose an unless order requiring compliance by a specified date. The order may provide that the appeal will stand struck out automatically if the required documents are not filed and served. The court should assess the reasons for non-compliance individually, distinguishing matters genuinely outside the appellant’s control from failures to take reasonable steps. Compliance with an unless order permits the appeal to proceed to consideration of permission to appeal; it does not itself confer permission.

The defendants appealed orders made by HHJ Hellman concerning the claimants’ possession claim relating to the defendants’ home. The appeals concerned orders made on 30 July and 27 August 2024. Permission to appeal out of time was granted by Sir Stephen Stewart, subject to an order requiring a compliant consolidated appeal bundle and concise grounds of appeal by 20 December 2024.

The defendants did not fully comply. They relied on difficulties obtaining transcripts and the sealed copy of the earlier order, and said that an application for an extension had been attempted in time. The claimants applied under CPR 52.18 to strike out the appeals, alternatively to lift the stay of execution. The central issue was whether the non-compliance supplied a compelling reason for strike-out or instead required a lesser procedural sanction.

1. The claimants’ applications to strike out the appeals were not granted. CPR 52.18 permits strike-out only where there is a compelling reason. The court treated strike-out as a draconian step that should be used only as a last resort.
2. The defendants had taken some steps to obtain the transcripts, and their status as litigants in person and limited resources could be taken into account. However, their evidence concerning the sealed copy of the first order was considerably weaker. They had not shown that they took all reasonable steps to obtain it before the deadline. Their grounds of appeal also appeared materially overlong and non-compliant with the applicable practice direction.
3. Although there was some evidence that the defendants had attempted to file an extension application on the deadline, that did not explain the wider failures. The absence of full compliance did not establish compelling grounds for immediate strike-out, but there were compelling reasons to secure future compliance. Court orders are made for a purpose and non-compliance must have consequences.
4. An unless order was therefore appropriate. The defendants were required to file and serve the documentation required by the earlier order within seven days, by 4.00 pm on 25 February 2025. Unless they complied, both appeals would stand struck out without further order.
5. If the order was complied with, the matter would be restored before a High Court judge to determine permission to appeal, together with the claimants’ adjourned application concerning the stay of execution and any other applications.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): On 18 February 2025, Mrs Justice Eady refused immediate strike-out of the appeals but made an unless order requiring compliance by 4.00 pm on 25 February 2025.
• County Court sitting at the Mayor’s and City of London County Court: HHJ Hellman made orders on 30 July and 27 August 2024 concerning possession of the property. Those orders were the subject of the appeals.