Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a preliminary Court of Appeal decision where permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was not granted. That conclusion follows from the proper interpretation of Lane v Esdaile [1891] AC 210. The result is unchanged whether permission was described as not granted or refused. Even if the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to refuse permission after refusing an extension of time, the application would fail. In any event, the grounds did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance warranting consideration by the Supreme Court.

The claimant applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from this court’s judgment and order of 21 May 2026, [2026] EWCA Civ 648. The underlying proceedings had reached the Court of Appeal from the Planning Court’s judgment, [2025] EWHC 3206 (Admin). The application concerned the refusal to extend time and the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to refuse permission after refusing an extension. The central questions were whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal and, if so, whether the grounds disclosed an arguable point of law of general public importance warranting consideration.

1. Disposition. The joint judgment of Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Holgate refused the application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal’s judgment and order, [2026] EWCA Civ 648.
2. The court respectfully agreed with the view of the Supreme Court set out in Practice Direction 1, paragraph 1.31, on the proper interpretation of Lane v Esdaile [1891] AC 210. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a preliminary decision of the Court of Appeal in a case where permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was not granted.
3. The wording “not granted”, rather than “refused”, produces the same result even if the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to refuse permission to appeal after refusing an extension of time.
4. In any event, assuming that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, the grounds against refusing an extension of time did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court. That provided an alternative basis for refusing permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the court’s judgment and order of 21 May 2026, [2026] EWCA Civ 648, was refused.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court: The underlying judgment of Mrs Justice Lang was [2025] EWHC 3206 (Admin).