Practice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division): CA 19 Apr 1999

As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission required?
2.1.1. Most appeals require the permission of the court below (the court which made the decision which is challenged) or of the Court of Appeal to bring an appeal.
2.1.2 Since 1 January 1999, permission has been required for all appeals except appeals against: (a) committal orders; (b) refusals to grant habeas corpus; and (c) secure accommodation orders made pursuant to section 25 of the Children Act 1989: see RSC, Ord. 59 r. 1B(1)(a)-(c).
2.1.3 The experience of the Court of Appeal is that many appeals and applications for permission to appeal are made which are quite hopeless. They demonstrate basic misconceptions as to the purpose of the civil appeal system and the different roles played by appellate courts and courts below. The court below has a crucial role in determining applications for permission to appeal. This guidance indicates how applicants, and courts, should approach the matter.’
‘Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review
2.7.1 The applicant’s advocate (and where any respondent will be represented at the Court of Appeal hearing, that party’s advocate) must file four copies of their skeleton arguments with the Civil Appeals Office with the application bundles.
2.7.2 This applies only to renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review. Where permission to apply has been granted and the substantive application for judicial review has been dealt with in the High Court, any application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against that decision will be governed by the general provisions for such applications.’


Lord Woolf MR


Times 26-Apr-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1027


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMahomed and Another v Morris and Others CA 17-Feb-2000
An application for leave to appeal was refused on a paper hearing by one judge, but later allowed after oral argument before a different judge. There was no rule which suggested that the first judge should recuse himself from acting on the full . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway HL 8-Nov-2000
Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84922