Kevin Cadogan t/a Ebonycare & Ors v London Borough of Haringey

An appeal bundle must remain focused on documents relevant and necessary to the issues, and proportionate to the hearing. A catch-all provision allowing material that a party considers likely to assist the appeal does not justify wholesale inclusion of irrelevant documents. The court may admit documents where relevance cannot be discounted, without suggesting that they are crucial. Money lodged in part execution of a default judgment that has been set aside should not be released to the former judgment creditor without a proper basis. A request to return it should be made formally, with fair notice, in the court dealing with the underlying proceedings.

The claimants brought County Court proceedings concerning unpaid invoices for child-placement services. HHJ Monty KC’s judgment dated 18 August 2023 determined which claimant had contracted with the defendant, rejected the contention that the 2010 contract was a deed, and left only limited claims extant.

The claimants sought extensions of time and permission to appeal against that judgment and three earlier orders. Directions were given for a proportionate appeal bundle, but the parties remained in dispute about numerous documents. At this High Court hearing, the court had to decide which disputed documents were relevant and necessary for the future appeal hearing. It also considered an application concerning £50,000 lodged in part execution of a default judgment that had subsequently been set aside.

The court did not determine the applications for an extension of time or permission to appeal. It determined the dispute about the appeal bundle and the application concerning the £50,000.

1. Appeal bundle. Applying CPR PD 52B, paragraph 6.4, the court considered the issues in the proposed appeal, relevance, necessity, proportionality, the overriding objective and the one-day hearing estimate. The catch-all category for documents that a party considers likely to assist the appeal did not justify including material that was irrelevant or unnecessary. The great majority of the disputed documents were excluded. A limited group was included where relevance could not be discounted, including relevant witness statements, the draft judgment, skeleton arguments, and selected disclosure and bundle correspondence.
2. Effect of inclusion. The inclusion of those documents was a case-management decision. It was not an indication that the documents were crucial to the extension-of-time or permission-to-appeal applications.
3. £50,000 payment. The request to release the money to the former judgment creditor was refused. The default judgment had been set aside, and the later judgment had found that the former judgment creditor had no extant claim. The payment could not be used to punish procedural conduct, provide an indirect costs award or operate as security for costs.
4. Return of the money. The court also declined to order its return to the defendant. No formal application for that relief had been made, the former judgment creditor had not received fair notice, and the matter was properly for the County Court dealing with the underlying proceedings. The issue was not reserved for the second-stage trial. The appeal bundle having been resolved, the outstanding extension and permission applications could be listed.

The judgment records the following procedural history:

1. Central London County Court. Proceedings began in 2018. A default judgment was later set aside on 3 April 2019. Further orders joined additional claimants, and HHJ Monty KC delivered the judgment dated 18 August 2023 which is the principal decision challenged.
2. High Court. On 5 December 2023, an extension of time was refused for appealing three earlier orders but granted for appealing the judgment of HHJ Monty KC. On 22 February 2024, Freedman J adjourned the time and permission issues and directed the parties to prepare a proportionate appeal bundle. On 13 November 2025, the bundle dispute was directed to be listed before a High Court judge. On 29 July 2026, the present court resolved the bundle dispute and the £50,000 application. The extension-of-time and permission-to-appeal applications remain to be determined.