[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 >> Ford v Mulder [2001] EWCA Civ 280 (22 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/280.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 280

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE FERRIS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 22 February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: This case was listed for 11 o'clock. It is now just after 11.15 am. It has been called on but there is no appearance by Mr Mulder. Moreover, I understand that he has not been in communication with the court to indicate whether he would or would not attend this hearing.
2. I have read the papers and, in my judgment, this is a hopeless application. It is an application for permission to appeal the decision of Ferris J, who had himself refused permission to appeal from a decision from the circuit judge in the Lambeth County Court. There can be no appeal to this court from such a decision (see section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999).
3. The judge did, however, also order Mr Mulder to pay costs, which he assessed at £647.07. There could, in theory, be an application for permission to appeal that order for costs (see the decision of this court in Clark v Perks [2000] 4 All ER page 1 at 6J). This being a second tier appeal, Mr Mulder would have to show either that the order for costs raised an important point of principle or practice, or that there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. It is absolutely plain that he comes nowhere near being able to satisfy either of those criteria. What he clearly cannot do is to attempt to circumvent section 54(4) by making an attack on the substantive decision to order possession under the guise of an attack on a costs order. There has to be a free-standing challenge to the costs order which satisfies the requirements of section 55(1) of the 1999 Act.
4. This is a hopeless application and I refuse permission to appeal.
Order: Application refused.