Latifa Tbahriti v White Collar (Legal and Admin) Ltd

Appeals from County Court case-management orders are by way of review, not rehearing. An appellate court may intervene only for an error of law or fact, an error in the exercise of discretion outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement, or serious procedural irregularity causing injustice. A judge need not expressly state that an application and its attachments were read where the hearing and reasons show that the application was considered. Case-management decisions, including unless orders, attract particular restraint on appeal. Permission requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. The appeal was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused on the two renewed applications.

In Latifa Tbahriti v White Collar (Legal and Admin) Ltd, the Respondent sued to recover a debt of £407.65, while the Appellant brought a substantial counterclaim. The Appellant appealed against a County Court case-management order made by HHJ Gerald and renewed applications for permission to appeal against later case-management orders made by HHJ Raeside KC and HHJ Saggerson.

The underlying claim proceeded to trial before HHJ Holmes, who found for the Respondent and dismissed the counterclaim. An appeal against that final order was struck out and was not before the court. The central issues were whether the first judge had proceeded unfairly in the Appellant’s absence without considering medical evidence, whether the later case-management decisions disclosed an appealable error, and whether anonymity and costs orders should be made.

Disposition. The appeal against the Gerald Order was dismissed. The renewed applications for permission to appeal against the Raeside Order and the Saggerson Order were refused. The application for anonymity was refused, and the Respondent was awarded £1,034.40 in costs.

1. Applicable standards. Under CPR r 52.21(3), an appeal from a County Court order is by way of review, not rehearing. It may succeed only where the decision was wrong because of an error of law or fact, or an error in the exercise of discretion outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement, or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. An error of fact includes failing to consider relevant facts, considering irrelevant facts, or making a finding that no reasonable judge could have made.
2. Gerald Order. The judge had considered the Appellant’s 10 April application, which was the principal purpose of the hearing, and the attached medical evidence. There was no requirement for him to state expressly that he had read the application. Even if the Chesterman Letter had been overlooked, it did not explain why the Appellant was unfit or unable to attend, or why participation could not be accommodated by adjustments. Its recommendation that proceedings be stayed was not binding. The decision to proceed in her absence was therefore fair and justified. The costs orders and ordinary case-management directions disclosed no error. An unless order would be disturbed only in exceptional circumstances, which were absent.
3. Renewed applications. Under CPR r 52.6(1), permission required a real prospect of success or another compelling reason. The court applied the approach stated in Broughton v Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1743, whose approval in Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd (No 2) [2014] UKSC 64 was recorded. Neither later judge had misdirected himself in law, ignored relevant matters, considered irrelevant matters, or made a plainly wrong decision outside the permissible range. Neither proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.
4. Costs. The Respondent had no evidential basis for recovery at the claimed contractual rate because the retainer was not produced. The alternative claim based on financial loss also required evidence of the amount claimed. The court referred to Chaplair Ltd v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798, awarded the minimum rate of £24 per hour under PD 46 paragraph 3.4, disallowed the observer-related items, and summarily assessed costs at £1,034.40.

• County Court at Central London: HHJ Gerald made a case-management order on 6 June 2024; HHJ Raeside KC made a further case-management order on 21 October 2024; and HHJ Saggerson made a further order on 3 December 2024. The underlying claim proceeded to trial before HHJ Holmes on 16 December 2024.
• High Court: Johnson J granted permission to appeal against the Gerald Order on 14 February 2025. Ritchie J refused permission to appeal against the Raeside and Saggerson Orders on 26 February 2026. The present court heard the appeal against the Gerald Order and the renewed applications, dismissing the appeal and refusing both applications.