Richard Sandor Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA & Ors

Under CPR rule 52.14, provision of a transcript at public expense is discretionary, not an entitlement. The court must first be satisfied that the applicant has sufficiently limited means and that obtaining the transcript is necessary in the interests of justice. A transcript of the entire proceedings will not ordinarily be justified without evidence explaining why it is required. A transcript of the judgment will usually be necessary where limited means are established and the appeal cannot properly be addressed without it. However, the means inquiry may take account of the applicant’s unexplained refusal to comply with asset-disclosure and cross-examination orders.

The claimant had obtained judgment against the third defendant, Christopher Samuelson, who had not paid the judgment debt and had failed to attend two appointments for cross-examination on his means. An earlier order required him to surrender his passport pending compliance with disclosure and cross-examination orders.

After an application to vary that passport order was dismissed, Mr Samuelson sought a transcript of the entire hearing at public expense for the purposes of an intended appeal. The issue was whether the conditions in CPR rule 52.14 were satisfied.

1. The application was refused. The court had no basis to conclude that a transcript of the entire proceedings was necessary in the interests of justice. The applicant had given no explanation why more than the judgment was required. The burden of establishing that need lay on him.
2. CPR rule 52.14(1) confers a judicial discretion rather than an entitlement. The power arises only if the court is satisfied both that the applicant has sufficiently limited means and that obtaining the transcript is necessary in the interests of justice.
3. In the usual case, an appellate court needs the judgment, or an agreed note of it, to assess whether the decision should stand. Accordingly, once sufficiently limited means are shown, the interests-of-justice requirement will usually be met for a transcript of the judgment, unless the order itself adequately records the reasons or no separate judgment was given.
4. The applicant’s Form EX105 showed modest income and a monthly shortfall, which would ordinarily be powerful evidence of limited means. However, his refusal to disclose assets and attend cross-examination led the court to infer that he possessed undisclosed assets. If his stated means were accurate, compliance with the earlier orders would have been possible and the passport order could have ended. The court was therefore not satisfied that CPR rule 52.14(1)(a) was met, so the power to order a transcript of the judgment at public expense did not arise.

The judgment records that an earlier application by the third defendant to vary a passport-surrender order was heard and dismissed on 18 March 2026. No permission to appeal was sought at that hearing. The present application for a publicly funded transcript was refused.