Planning analysis: In Bishop v WCC, the High Court quashed the grant of planning permission by Westminster City Council (WCC) on the basis that the applicant had made a series of false and misleading statements in the planning application, including in the ownership certificate, so that a person with an interest in the development was not notified of the application for planning permission.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Can a defendant who had been conclusively debarred from defending a claim be granted permission to appeal against the substantive judgment of the claim? Nathan Capone, associate at Fieldfisher, looks at how the Chancery Division dealt with that issue in Hall v Elia.

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The judge, Mrs Justice Bacon, was hearing a ‘rolled-up’ application for permission to appeal against ICC Judge Barber’s decision on whether the petitioning creditor had established a good arguable case under section 265(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), namely, whether the debtor, Prince Hussam, a member of the Saudi royal family, had had a place of residence in England and Wales at any time within the three years preceding the presentation of the petition. Establishing a good arguable case under section 265 was necessary in order to obtain permission to serve the petition out of the jurisdiction. In considering the first instance judgment, the judge reviewed and gave guidance on the test of ‘good arguable case’ for the purposes of CPR Part 6 and the correct approach to the determination of the disputed issue of whether Prince Hussam had a place of residence within the jurisdiction. Written by Bridget Williamson, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The underlying proceedings concern an application by the claimant (‘TICL’) for an interim anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) against the defendant (‘GIC’). GIC applied for a stay pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the AA 1996). Eventually, TICL was granted anti-suit relief, made final on 21 January 2025. Permission to appeal was sought by GIC, and refused by Nigel Cooper KC, sitting as a High Court Judge. What is particularly interesting about this case is how permission to appeal was refused notwithstanding that a prior judge (Mr Houseman KC) had given permission on the same point in related proceedings (and indeed the defendant in that case was granted a stay), and another judge (Mr Hancock KC) held that an appeal on the same grounds had a ‘real prospect of success’. Ultimately, permission to appeal which was sought on two grounds was refused. Costs fell in the usual way in TICL’s favour, being the overall winner, but this decision is notable for the judge taking a ‘cautious’ approach given the rates provided being in excess of the London 1 Guideline Rate. Written by Ian Chai, senior associate at Edwin Coe LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: His Honour Judge (HHJ) Hacon addressed the precise procedure to be followed when a decision is handed down remotely, the parties do not attend, and one or more of the parties then wishes to appeal. The judge made it very clear that the procedure has not been altered by the coronavirus (COVID-19) protocol (the Protocol). The date of the decision for the purposes of CPR 52.12 (which sets time running for the 21-day period in which an application for permission to appeal must be made) is the date of the hearing, referred to as the ‘decision hearing’, at which the decision is given, regardless of whether the decision is ex tempore or whether there is a formal hand down of a reserved judgment. A party who wishes to apply to the lower court for permission to appeal should do so at the decision hearing and, where counsel have been excused from attendance, that application should be made in advance of the decision hearing. If no permission application is made at the decision hearing, and there has been no adjournment, the lower court is no longer seized of the matter and cannot consider any retrospective application for permission to appeal. Written by Oliver E Browne, partner and chair of the London Litigation & Trial Department, at Latham & Watkins.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that the test for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal (UT) in claims of this kind, which are claims for judicial review heard by the UT exercising its original jurisdiction rather than appeals from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), is the first appeal test and not the second appeal test. The first appeal test requires that the court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The second appeal test requires that an appeal would raise ‘an important point of principle or practice’ or that there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The UT erred in applying the second appeal test. However, applying the correct test, the court held that there was no real prospect of success in either appeal nor was there some other compelling reason permitting an appeal to proceed. Both applications for permission to appeal were refused.

Arbitration analysis: In Osler v Osler, the Court of Appeal considered the requirements for permission to appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). In particular, whether the court can entertain a renewed oral application for permission to appeal an arbitral award in circumstances where permission had been refused on paper. The Court of Appeal held that there was no such right under AA 1996. This is significant because it means that permission to appeal applications which are refused on paper by a single judge of the High Court cannot be renewed orally, whether in the High Court or before the Court of Appeal. This interpretation of AA 1996, s 69 gives effect to the finality of arbitral awards, in a speedy and efficient manner. It is faithful the language and purpose of the section. Written by Philippe Kuhn, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

This Practice Note considers appeals from case management decisions, in respect of which additional criteria (which might be described as ‘proportionality criteria’) may be taken into account when the court is considering whether to grant permission to appeal. For detailed guidance on permission to appeal generally, see Practice Notes: • Permission to appeal—preliminary considerations • Permission to appeal—the application • Permission to appeal—hearing and next steps What are case management decisions? Case management decisions are defined in the Practice Directions accompanying Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) (CPR 52). According to CPR PD 52A, para 4.6, case management decisions include decisions made in relation to: • disclosure. Note: this includes an order for specific disclosure (see Hankin v Barrington, discussed in News Analysis: Specific disclosure and permission to appeal case management decisions (Hankin v Barrington)) • the filing of witness statements or experts' reports • directions about the timetable of the claim • adding a party to a claim • security for costs, and • the exercise of the court’s general

Appeals in contempt proceedings Special rules apply to appeals in contempt proceedings. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Civil contempt proceedings—appeals, purges and discharge. Determining an application for permission to appeal (PTA) Decision on the papers or oral hearing? Whether the appeal is a first or second appeal, permission to appeal will initially be considered on the papers (see CPR 52.4(1) and CPR 52.5(1)). A hearing of the application for permission to appeal will only take place in the following circumstances: • in the County Court and High Court—when the person seeking permission requests the decision refusing permission to appeal on the papers to be reconsidered at an oral hearing unless the judge who has refused permission to appeal without an oral hearing has made an order that the person seeking permission may not request the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing (CPR 52.4(2) and CPR 52.4(3)) • in the Court of Appeal—when the judge considering the application on paper has directed that the application be determined at an

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 governing permission to appeal, see Practice Notes: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations, Permission to appeal—the application, Permission to appeal—preliminary considerations and Permission to appeal—hearing and next steps. 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. CPR 52 (old) CPR PD 52 (old) The following legislation is referred to in this Practice Note: • Children Act 1989 as ChA 1989 • Access to Justice Act 1999 as AJA 1999 Requiring permission You will need the court's permission to appeal. If permission to appeal is refused by the lower court and the appeal court, that is the

This Practice Note provides guidance on permission to appeal (PTA) under Part 52 of the CPR. For detailed guidance on how to apply for permission to appeal under Part 52 of the CPR, see Practice Note: Permission to appeal—the application. For guidance on the hearing of an application for permission to appeal and what to do after the hearing, see Practice Note: Permission to appeal—hearing and next steps. In addition to advising a client of the effect, implication and consequences of bringing an appeal, including those relating to costs, practitioners should also be aware of (and prepared to discuss the possibility of) the court granting permission on a limited or conditional basis, see Practice Notes: Permission to appeal—hearing and next steps—Limited permission to appeal and Imposing conditions on an appeal respectively. For permission to appeal in civil contempt proceedings, see Practice Note: Civil contempt proceedings—appeals, purges and discharge. For examples of where the court has and has not granted permission to appeal, see Practice Note: Permission to appeal—hearing and next steps—Determining an application for permission

This Practice Note gives guidance on how to apply for permission to appeal (PTA) under Part 52 of the CPR to the lower court and appellate court (CPR 52.3(2)), which provides guidance on appealing decisions of the lower courts and the procedure for making applications for PTA to the lower court. It covers the requirement to make an application at the end of the hearing in the lower court and also the time limits for seeking PTA from the appellate court where no application has been made to the lower court or where the lower court has refused PTA. Applications for permission to the Court of Appeal where no oral hearing has been directed are specifically considered, along with the respondent’s involvement (and costs) and what a respondent may do, as well as procedure and specific provisions for the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal and how (and by whom) an application for PTA will be determined. Note that the provisions in CPR 52 and associated practice directions underwent substantial amendment in October