NOTE: SAVE FOR WHERE THE APPEAL NOTICE WAS FILED OR PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS OBTAINED BEFORE 1 OCTOBER 2012, THIS PRACTICE NOTE IS FOR HISTORIC PURPOSES ONLY. For guidance on the current provisions governing permission to appeal, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations—Is it possible to re-open an appeal (including an application for permission to appeal)?. Further, the CPR rules and practice directions referred to in this guidance will link through to the existing provisions and not those effective before 1 October 2012. For the pre-October 2012 provisions, please see the attached pdf documents. Principles The Court of Appeal or the High Court can only re-open a final determination of any appeal in three situations. These are: • where it is necessary to do so in order to avoid real injustice • the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate, and • there is no alternative remedy The Court of Appeal has clearly stated that CPR 52.17: '.. does not exist to allow unsuccessful litigants to re-argue

This Practice Note provides information on the appeal court’s power to order costs, whether these costs can be summarily assessed and/or ordered on an indemnity basis. whether it is possible to recover the costs incurred during an appeal. It considers the Supreme Court’s power to order costs along with the specific costs provisions in relation to skeleton arguments. It also provides information on the respondent’s costs in relation to an application for permission to appeal as well as costs on settlement, disposal, dismissal or discontinuance of the appeal For guidance on appealing an order for costs, see Practice Note: Appeals against cost orders. This Practice Note does not deal with the issue of costs recovery under a statutory appeal. Type of work undertaken on appeal The type of work undertaken on making an appeal means that counsel’s fees are likely to exceed those of the solicitors. Where both counsel and solicitors have been instructed on a short appeal, the postscript part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Jofa v Benherst Finance (2019) suggests that

This Practice Note details the general principles and procedure to be applied in relation to appeals in family proceedings and wider issues including applications within appeals, the reopening of final appeals, powers of strike out and costs. It details key provisions of Part 30 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) and FPR 2010, PD 30A as well as applicable provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). Certain appeals from circuit judges and recorders lie to the High Court rather than the Court of Appeal (unless they are second appeals which lie to the Court of Appeal). The key provisions are set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 at FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 30, and in the supporting Practice Directions FPR 2010, PD 30A and FPR 2010, PD 30B, together with the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2014, SI 2014/602. FPR 2010, PD 41C (Proceedings by Electronic Means: Appeals in Family Proceedings Heard in the High Court) makes provision for appeal

This Practice Note has been written by Anne Redston, Barrister. It is her personal view; she is not authorised to speak for the Tribunals Service or the judiciary. This Practice Note outlines what happens after your client receives the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decision notice. It discusses: • the options, if you are unhappy with the decision, including: ◦ textual corrections to the decision ◦ asking for the decision to be set aside, and/or ◦ asking for permission to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (UT) • when a taxpayer is likely to be granted permission to appeal, and • the costs implications of further litigation Before you read this Practice Note, you should read Practice Note: Appealing an HMRC decision. This Practice Note, and the other Practice Notes on appealing to the FTT, are only a summary; they do not cover all situations. You may need to take further advice in relation to your client’s appeal position. This Practice Note does not cover judicial review in tax

Basis of the right to re-open a final determination of an appeal The jurisdiction to re-open a final decision was established in Taylor v Lawrence. There, it was held that the Court of Appeal possesses a residual jurisdiction 'to avoid real injustice in exceptional circumstances'. The exercise of the power identified in Taylor v Lawrence is regulated by CPR 52.30 (Helios Oryx v Trustco Group Holdings). The Court of Appeal has emphasised that CPR 52.30 was passed to limit, not to extend, the operation of the jurisdiction under Taylor v Lawrence—only circumstances which are exceptional and which make it appropriate to reopen the appeal as exemplified by Taylor v Lawrence and subsequent cases engage the rule (Jaffray v Society of Lloyds; Ingenious Games v HMRC). CPR 52.30 provides that the Court of Appeal or High Court will not re-open a ‘final determination of any appeal’, including an application for permission to appeal, unless: • it is necessary so as to avoid real injustice • the circumstances are exceptional

A notice in the nominated registry setting out the caveator's interest contrary to that of the person warning.

A person who is appealing against a decision of the court.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. NOTE: SAVE FOR WHERE THE APPEAL NOTICE WAS FILED OR PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS OBTAINED BEFORE 1 OCTOBER 2012, THIS PRACTICE NOTE IS FOR HISTORIC PURPOSES ONLY. For guidance on the current provisions applying to starting an appeal, see Practice Notes: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations, Starting an appeal—destination of civil appeals and Starting an appeal—general provisions. Further, the CPR rules and practice directions referred to in this guidance will link through to the existing provisions and not those effective before 1 October 2012. For the pre-October 2012 provisions, please see the attached PDF documents. Form of notice The appellant's notice sets out the appellant's case for the appeal. It is in a prescribed form: • Form N164 to appeal small claims track decisions • Form N161 to appeal all other cases (apart from appeals to the Supreme Court) Appellant's notice—small claims The appellant must file and serve the notice in Form N164. The following documents must also

Arbitration analysis: Under French law, appeals against exequatur orders may take the form of either a request to annul (annulation) or to overturn (réformation). These have distinct procedural implications: the former is limited to formal defects; the latter opens the door to substantive review akin to annulment of awards rendered in France. Both must be explicitly pleaded, and in due time. The International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, in a decision dated 8 July 2025, held that, in an appeal against an order granting exequatur of an arbitral award rendered abroad, the appellant must explicitly and distinctly request that the exequatur order be overturned—and not merely set aside, within three months of filing the appeal. Otherwise, the court will consider that it has not been properly seized of the claim and will decline to rule on it. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under Articles 908, 910-4, and 954 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (the ‘FCCP’) and serves as a reminder for practitioners to clearly set out all claims in the operative part of their submissions within the prescribed time limits. Written by Raphaël Kaminsky and Giorgos Zachariadis, of Teynier PIC.

An appellate court is a court that hears appeals from decisions of lower courts or tribunals, rather than trying cases from scratch or hearing new evidence. In practice, it reviews alleged errors of law, procedure or, more rarely, findings of fact, and may uphold, vary, set aside or order a retrial of the decision under appeal.Across the UK and Ireland, “appellate court” is a descriptive term rather than a single defined statutory concept. Key appellate courts include the Court of Appeal (England and Wales, and Northern Ireland), the Sheriff Appeal Court and Court of Session (Inner House) in Scotland, and the Court of Appeal in Ireland. The UK Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ireland function as final appellate courts in most civil and many criminal matters.Appeals are governed by specific procedural rules (for example, the Civil Procedure Rules, Criminal Procedure Rules, Act of Sederunt or Irish court rules) and almost always require permission to appeal. For practitioners, understanding appellate jurisdiction, standard of review, time limits and remedies is critical for advising on appeal prospects, preserving points of law and formulating appropriate appellate advocacy.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved applications to rectify procedural errors: (1) the appellant had failed to serve the claim form in time, having served an unsealed version and subsequently failing to serve the correct sealed version of the claim form; and (2) the respondent had failed to specify in its acknowledgement of service and the relevant application seeking an order that the claim be struck out due to non-compliance with CPR 7.5 that it contested the court’s jurisdiction under CPR Part 11. In relation to the first error, the appellate court held that the District Judge was correct to refuse either to dispense with service or retrospectively to extend the time for service. However, in relation to the second error, the appellate court was willing to exercise its discretion to treat the respondent’s application to strike out the claim as including an application for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear it, taking into consideration that the declaration sought by the respondent was clear from the witness statement served in support of it and compliance with CPR 11(1) would have been achieved by adding minimal wording which was implicit in any event. Written by Anna Gilbert, counsel at Hausfeld & Co LLP and Simon Bishop, partner at Hausfeld & Co LLP.

Law360: British car service company Addison Lee can't overturn an order requiring it to pay £125,000 to continue relying on certain arguments in its defence as it fights hundreds of drivers claiming worker status, an Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled.