0370 270 6000

Plender v Hiyams

2 November 2000
The issues

The manner in which Applications for permission to appeal should be made (inter alia)

The facts

Appellant was a Claimant in person who sought to appeal against the decision of the Judge at trial. He failed to lodge his Appellant’s Notice which included an Application for permission to appeal within time. The Application for permission to appeal was considered on paper by the High Court Judge who refused it stating “for non compliance with Practice Direction (Part 52)” No further details of non compliance were given. The Appellant should have requested that the decision be reconsidered at a re-hearing pursuant to Rule 52.3(4) but instead filed an Appellant’s Notice seeking to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Held.

The decision

1. This was the wrong route. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the Application made by the Appellant. The Appellant instead should apply out of time for a re-hearing of his Application in the High Court.

2. The Court of Appeal would take this opportunity however to provide guidance in general terms. (The Court considered the various possible non compliance by the Appellant in this case in detail). It noted in particular:-

(a) That an Appellant who is not represented need not lodge a Skeleton.

(b) That although the Practice Direction requires an Application for permission to appeal to be made orally at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed against is made (paragraph 4.6.) Paragraph 4.7 provides that where no such Application is made an Application may be made to the Appeal Court – in this case the High Court.

(c) Application for leave was not made within the time limits laid down. See CPR Rule 52.4. It noted that prior to the Court’s Judgment in Tanfern there had been some uncertainty surrounding the introduction of Part 52 and that the Court should take note of this particularly in cases involving Litigants in person in cases where there had been a failure to comply.

(d) Paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction states that the High Court will not allow a hearing for the re-consideration of a decision to refuse permission to appeal on the ground of non compliance with the Part 52 Practice Direction. The Court of Appeal could see no proper basis for that Practice in circumstances where the non compliance itself was challenged. It noted in addition that there may well be other circumstances where a hearing ought to be permitted e.g. once there had been compliance with the Practice Direction after the refusal of permission on paper.

(e) The Claimant had made an allegation of breach of Article 6 of the European Convention. A Litigant should have a right to a reasoned decision. On an Application for leave a Judge dealing with the Application could quite properly be brief in explaining his conclusion but at the very least the Judge should have identified how the Practice Direction was not complied with. “This can be done briefly but it should not be left to the conjecture of the Litigant”.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up