Test for permission

Convergence Group plc and another v Chantrey Vellacott (a firm) CA TLR 25 April

CPR rule 52.3(6) provides that permission to appeal will only be given where: (a) the court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or (b) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. In respect of second appeals CPR rule 52.13: (1) provides that permission is required from the Court of Appeal for any appeal to that court from a decision of a county court or the High Court which was itself made on appeal; and (2) the Court of Appeal will not give permission unless it considers that (a) the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice; or (b) there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. In the present case the defendant had sought to re-amend its defence and counter-claim at a contested hearing. The Chancery master was unable to deal with all the proposed amendments because of lack of time but did disallow some. The defendant appealed against that decision to the judge and asked him to deal with the amendments which the master had not considered. The judge dismissed the appeal against the master’s order, and allowed some amendments and refused the remainder. The defendant sought permission to appeal on the basis that the appropriate test was under CPR rule 52.3(6) (a) but the claimants argued for the higher test under CPR rule 52.13.