Appeals - Civil Procedure Rules

Appeals are governed by:	Access to Justice Act 1999; Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52 Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000. And: Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-Macdonald and another (2000) CA
A principal objective of the reforms	Is for the courts to deal with appeals once at the right level, so that only cases of sufficient importance, value and complexity find their way to the Court of Appeal. Where cases do reach the Court of Appeal, the reforms ensure that the constitution of the court hearing the appeal is appropriate to the nature and weight of the case, so that only cases of sufficient importance, value and complexity find their way to the Court of Appeal.
The Civil Division	Has seen a substantial increase in its workload over recent years leading to significant delays taking place in the hearing of appeals. This problem has been tackled, so that the Court of Appeal was ready to face the new cases, which came forward since the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act allows a single High Court judge to hear certain criminal cases; and clarify the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear 'appeals by way of case stated' from the Crown Court.
Appeals under new Civil Procedure Rules
Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-Macdonald (2000) Full case here	The Court of Appeal gave detailed guidance as to the effect of the new Act and procedures, particularly in relation to appeals in civil proceedings in private law matters.
Appeals, multi-track cases	Lie direct to the Court of Appeal, whether from county court or the High Court.
Appeals in civil proceedings in private law matters
Appeals: the general rule	As a general rule, appeal lay to the next level of judge in the court hierarchy.
High Court judge	Must have correct status
Appeals: the exceptions	The normal route of appeal would not be followed where a district judge or a circuit judge in the county court, or a master or district judge of the High Court gave the final decision in a multi-track claim.
Permission to appeal: the general rule.	Permission is required for an appeal either by the lower court at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed was made, or by the appeal court.
Permission to appeal only given	Where the court considered that an appeal would have a real prospect of success or that there was some or that there was some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. why the appeal should be heard. Such compelling reasons might include a questions of public interest or where an appeal is likely to clarify a point of law.
Real prospect of success	Lord Woolf the Lord Chief Justice explained that the use of the word "real" meant that the prospect of success must be realistic rather than fanciful: *Swain v Hillman* (The Times November 4, 1999).
Permission to appeal: Exceptions, liberty of the subject.	Permission to appeal would not be required where the appeal was against a committal order, a refusal of habeas corpus or a secure accommodation order. In those cases, where the liberty of the subject was in issue, appeal lay as of right.
Permission to appeal: Exceptions, Small claims track.	Permission to appeal was not required for an appeal from a district judge to a circuit judge in relation to a decision made in the small claims track.
First appeals diverted to the Court of Appeal	If the normal route of a first appeal would be to a circuit judge or to a High Court judge, either the lower court or the appeal court might order the appeal to be transferred to the Court of Appeal if they considered that it would raise an important point of principle or practice or there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
Appellate approach: the general rule, a review of the decision, not a rehearing.	As a general rule, every appeal would be limited to a review of the decision of the lower court. Unless the court considered that in the circumstances of an individual appeal it would be in the interests of justice to hold a re-hearing. The appeal court would only allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was wrong, or where it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. The appeal court's duty is now limited to a review of that decision, and it could only interfere in quite limited circumstances.
Need for a suitable record	The new emphasis on the importance of the decision made at first instance gave added weight to the need for all such decisions to be recorded accurately, so that the appeal court would be able to read a reliable version of the judgment, which it was concerned to review.
Appellate approach: the exceptions the small claims track	The only permissible grounds of appeal were that there was a serious irregularity affecting the proceedings or that the court made a mistake of law.
"Skeletons"	The Appellant must appeal in writing within 14 days; the Respondent has to do nothing unless he wishes to address the appeal court. Both parties must provide a summary or their argument called a "skeleton ".
Appeals against a decision of an authorised court officer in detailed assessment proceedings	The court would rehear the proceedings that gave rise to the decision. In other words, in such a case the court hearing the appeal would exercise its discretion afresh.
Appeal court powers: general rule	It has the power to affirm, set aside or vary any order or judgment made or given by the lower court; to refer any claim or issue for determination by the lower court; to order a new trial or hearing and to make a costs order. In relation to the whole or part of an order of the lower court. The Court of Appeal also had special powers in an appeal from a claim tried by a jury.
Second Appeals	Parliament has made it clear that it was only in an exceptional case that a second appeal might be sanctioned. That reform introduced a major change to our appeal procedures. It would no longer be possible to pursue a second appeal to the Court of Appeal merely because the appeal was "properly arguable" or "because it has a real prospect of success". The new statutory provision is tough; the relevant point of principle or practice must be an important one. It was clear that in the Access to Justice Act 1999 Parliament ensured that second appeals would become a rarity.