COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED

In January this year  I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment.Where HH Judge Robinson allowed an appeal where the District Judge had struck out a case on the grounds that failure to pay the correct fee was an abuse of process.  Permission to appeal that decision has been refused.

THE DEFENDANT’S APPEAL

The defendant in that case attempted to appeal. Permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justice Floyd.  Permission was refused:

  • The  Circuit Judge interpreted a letter written before issue correctly. Once this was done “there was nothing positive to suggest that there had been a deliberate decision to pay a lower fee in the knowledge that the claim was worth more.” “An appeal against the judge’s finding would not have a real prospect of success”.
  • It was “for the applicant to establish the case of abuse of process, not for the claimant to disprove it.”
  • “An allegation of abuse of process against any firm of solicitors is a serious matter which requires to be established on more than mere speculation”.
  • “None of the grounds of appeal has a real prospect of success.”

ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO ABUSE AND UNDER-PAYMENT OF COURT FEES

There are not, to my knowledge, any reported cases at appeal where  the courts have struck out an action for underpayment of court fees, or upheld a striking out. It is important to remember that in the original decision on this point  Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch) the judge did not  strike out the action for being an abuse of process (although he held that the deliberate and repeated conduct in that case was an abuse of process). Rather the action failed because of limitation issues. Proceedings issued as an abuse of process were not issued within the limitation period.

RELATED POSTS