Sir Henry Brooke considered the requirements in the CPR for requesting permission to appeal: ‘When the CPR introduced a well-nigh universal regime for permission to appeal-see CPR r.52.3(1) -the rule makers introduced a tough regime in order to avoid the progress of appeals being delayed while leave to appeal was being sought from a lower court. Recommendation 14 on p.142 of the Bowman Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (September 1997) was to the effect that:
‘An application for leave to appeal should continue to be made to the court below either at the moment of decision or subsequently, provided it can be placed before the judge who made the decision against which it is sought to appeal.’
CPR r.52.3(2)(a) , however, provided more prescriptively that:
‘(2) An application for permission to appeal may be made –
(a) to the lower court at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed was made.’
The practice direction to CPR Pt 52 states in para.4.6:
‘An application for permission should be made orally at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed against is made.’
4 If it was not made at that hearing the judge in the lower court had no power to grant permission to appeal, and any permission he purported to grant was a nullity (see Jones v T Mobile (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1162 ).’
Judges:
Sir Henry Brooke
Citations:
[2008] CP Rep 17
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and Others ChD 9-Jul-2009
One of the parties wanted to request permission to appeal, but had not done so at the hearing. The court considered whether it had power to do so at a later hearing.
Held: It did not. The Rules set out a deliberately prescriptive regime which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.347504