Irama PTE Limited v Formark Scaffolding (Holdings) Limited

Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. A challenge to a default costs certificate needs Points of Dispute showing a viable objection; points filed later cannot establish that the judge erred on the material before her. Grounds must address the order under appeal, and an alleged audience irregularity alone does not undermine an otherwise reasoned and substantively sound order. A company may be represented by a director or other person only with court permission. Where an application for permission is totally without merit, the court must record that finding and consider a civil restraint order; a limited order may follow a persistent history of such applications.

Irama PTE Limited sought renewed permission to appeal the County Court's dismissal of its application to set aside an earlier order and a default costs certificate. The application had been marked totally without merit, and further costs were summarily assessed. The renewed application followed a paper refusal of permission by Martin Spencer J.

The proposed grounds included challenges to the earlier costs proceedings, the absence of Points of Dispute, the rights of audience and litigation conduct of the respondent's representative, and the costs orders. The central questions were whether any ground had a real prospect of success or other compelling reason for an appeal, and whether the appellant's history warranted a civil restraint order.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The proposed appeal was totally without merit. The court also made a limited civil restraint order against the appellant company and its director.

1. Company representation. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 39.6 provides for an authorised employee to represent a company at trial with the court's permission. The court treated permission for a director or other person to address the court as a matter of judicial discretion, ordinarily suited to a company officer or employee and a case that can properly proceed without legal representation. The approach reflected Charles P Kinnell & Co Ltd v Harding, Wace & Co [1918] 1 KB 405. Mr Chopra was permitted to represent the appellant at this hearing, though the judge warned that permission might not be repeated.
2. Rights of audience. Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Legal Services Act 2007, subject to paragraph 7, a person granted a right of audience by the court for the proceedings is exempt from the relevant restriction. The court distinguished rights of audience from rights to conduct litigation. Mr Malone's lack of authority to conduct litigation did not itself deprive him of a right of audience. Further, even if there had been an irregularity in a representative being heard at an earlier hearing, that would not make the resulting order appealable without a basis to challenge the judge's reasoning or the substantive order.
3. Appeal threshold and costs challenge. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 52.6, permission requires a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason. The earlier orders were final and out of time for appeal; other grounds did not challenge the decision under appeal or had not been raised before Judge Bloom. The challenge to the default costs certificate lacked the basic material needed to show merit: Points of Dispute identifying the costs objections. The transcript confirmed there were none before Judge Bloom. Her decision was a fresh assessment of the merits, and later points could not establish an error in that decision. The reference to Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 did not assist because Judge Bloom had considered the underlying merits. Nor was there evidence that the summary assessment was disproportionate or punitive; the costs discretion was broad.
4. Civil restraint order. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 52.20(6), the court had to record that the application was totally without merit and consider whether a civil restraint order was appropriate. Given the repeated totally without merit applications, the court made a limited order against the company and Mr Chopra personally. Further applications in these proceedings would require court scrutiny and permission.

1. High Court (King's Bench Division) — On renewed application, permission to appeal was refused and the proposed appeal was found totally without merit. A limited civil restraint order was made: [2026] EWHC 1681 (KB) .
2. High Court — Martin Spencer J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 2 June 2026; the order was sealed on 8 June 2026.
3. County Court at Central London — On 5 December 2025, Her Honour Judge Bloom dismissed the appellant's application to set aside an earlier order, marked it totally without merit, and summarily assessed further costs.