[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Khan v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis [2001] EWCA Civ 544 (5 April 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/544.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 544

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BRENTFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Thursday, 5th April 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE HENRY: This is an application by Ms Khan for permission to appeal against the order of His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards in the Brentford County Court on 18th August 2000, when he dismissed her appeal against the order of District Judge Edwards in the same court on 2nd March 2000. District Judge Edwards had awarded her damages in the sum of £794.94, which was considerably less than she had sought to claim.
2. The facts are these. On 5th September 1990 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft by officers from Hounslow Police Station. In the course of their inquiries that day they seized a substantial amount of property from the applicant's home. The applicant was subsequently acquitted of the offences with which she was charged. On 21st February 1992 property was returned to her. In 1994 she brought proceedings seeking the return of the goods held by the police and damages for broken or missing items.
3. On 22nd October 1999 District Judge Plaskow directed that the claim be listed for hearing in the Small Claims Court. The applicant did not appeal against that order. The case was eventually tried on 2nd March 2000 before District Judge Plaskow. The defendant admitted that two boxes of property were unlawfully disposed of and sold at auction, but otherwise disputed the claim. The transcript of the judgment shows that the district judge considered each head of claim carefully, allowing some and rejecting others where he did not consider the claim proven on the balance of probabilities.
4. On 14th March 2000 the applicant appealed against his decision. That appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards, who dismissed it. He identified the test that the applicant must meet on an appeal from the Small Claims Court as "a serious irregularity in the court below and/or a mistake of law". He asked the applicant what irregularities she alleged. She complained that all the witnesses had been at court at the same time. He told her that this was standard procedure. She complained that the case should have been allocated to the fast track, in which case she might have got legal aid. He said that it was too late to take that point. She complained that the district judge preferred the police evidence on some points. He explained that the judge was entitled to do that. Similarly, he was entitled to refuse to allow heads of claim relating to property belonging to the applicant's flatmate and not to the applicant herself. The judge concluded that the applicant had shown no irregularity and no mistake of law. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.
5. The applicant now renews her application for permission to appeal to this court. Her grounds of appeal are set out in this way:

"The judge made a procedural mistake by putting this case in Small Claims Court, whilst the amount claimed was more than that. It should have been allocated to fast track or multi track. That's why he refused to deal with my appeal and refused to give me leave to appeal."

6. That is relied on as an irregularity and a procedural error.
7. She expands on this in her skeleton argument, saying as follows:

"The Defendant sold all the rest of the Plaintiff's property plus the ones they were holding for clarification.

The Defendant failed to amend Particulars of Claim. The judge failed to hear Amendments of Claim made by Plaintiff. Due to no knowledge of law Plaintiff cannot speak properly and Defendant's barrister is giving false statement in Court to win his argument. Plaintiff is disabled, cannot defend herself. That's why I need this case in the fast or multi track as well, so I can apply for legal aid: see papers attached."

8. That makes it clear that this is a second appeal for the purposes of section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR Part 52.13, which state that the Court of Appeal will not grant permission to appeal unless it considers that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for this court to hear it.
9. There is nothing in the grounds of appeal, or in the documents, or in the submissions that Ms Khan has made to me today that would satisfy either of those requirements. I can see no point raised in the grounds of appeal that would meet that test, nor even the lesser test of a reasonable prospect of success. If the applicant was not happy with the decision to allocate the case to the small claims track, she should have appealed against that at the time. She raises no arguable complaint of irregularity in the hearing itself, much less a serious irregularity, and she cannot point to an error of law in the district judge's decision.
10. In my judgment, therefore, His Honour Judge Marcus Edwards was right to dismiss her appeal. This second appeal cannot succeed and permission for it should not be granted.
Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed.