Key Facts
- •The defendant, Christopher Ramsay, applied for an extension of time to file an appeal and for permission to appeal out of time against an order of HH Judge Roberts made on 8 December 2021.
- •The order concerned two applications: the defendant's application for a stay and the claimant's application to transfer enforcement of a possession order to the High Court.
- •The defendant was absent from the hearing on 8 December 2021, claiming he was unaware of the Microsoft Teams hearing and was told by a court employee that no hearing was taking place.
- •The defendant initially claimed the order was a forgery, but this was refuted by the transcript of the hearing.
- •The defendant alleged various procedural irregularities and improprieties in the handling of the case.
Legal Principles
Permission to appeal test – first appeals
CPR 52.6(1)
Hearing of appeals
CPR 52.21(1)
Serious procedural irregularity leading to an unjust decision
Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-Macdonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311; Hayes v Transco [2003] EWCA Civ 1261; Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 60; PR (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 988
Application to set aside judgment/order due to non-attendance
CPR 39.3, CPR 23.11
Relief from sanctions
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906; R (on the application of Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633
Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial)
European Convention on Human Rights
Equality Act 2010, section 29(1)
Equality Act 2010
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights; Human Rights Act 1998, sections 6(1) and 6(3); Barclays Bank v Alcorn [2002] EWCA Civ 817
Outcomes
Extension of time granted for the appeal.
The defendant did not know about the judgment until November 2022 and acted diligently after discovering it.
Appeal against the order transferring enforcement to the High Court dismissed.
No serious procedural irregularity found; defendant was aware of the application; no real prospect of success on the merits.
Appeal against the order refusing a stay dismissed.
No real prospect of success on the merits; arguments based on unlawful procedure, Equality Act 2010, and Article 8 ECHR lacked merit.
Order stating the stay application was 'totally without merit' set aside.
Given the complicated background, the court deemed this part of the order inappropriate.