Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE KEENE,LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER,LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY,LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
Judgment Date19 September 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] EWCA Civ 1114,[2001] EWCA Civ 603,[2001] EWCA Civ 1402
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket NumberNO: B2/2001/0178,B2/2001/1395/1063/A,Case Nos: B2/2001/1063A, 1395 and 1468
Date19 September 2001
Paragon Finance PLC
Respondent
and
Richard Helal Noueiri
Applicant

[2001] EWCA Civ 1114

Before:

Lord Justice Robert Walker

Lord Justice Tuckey

B2/2001/1395/1063/A

B2/2000/1468

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE WILLESDEN COUNTY COURT

(Lord Justice Keene, His Honour Judge Krikler and Mr Recorder Rayner James)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

The Applicant appeared in person assisted by his lay representative Mr Alexander

The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented

Wednesday, 4th July 2001

LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER
1

There are before the court three applications by Mr Richard Noueiri (on whose behalf we have been addressed by Mr Anthony Alexander).

2

Two of the applications were made on 25th June last, that is the Monday of last week. One of these is an application for a stay of execution of a possession order made against Mr Noueiri in proceedings brought against him in the Willesden County Court by a mortgage lender, Paragon Finance Plc ("Paragon"). The warrant of possession relates to leasehold residential premises at Flat 2, 13 James Avenue, London NW2, which is Mr Noueiri's home.

3

The other application made on 25th June is for permission to appeal from an order of Keene LJ made in open court on 20th June last, striking out, under Order 52 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a notice of appeal from an order of Hallett J made on 15th January last. This application also seeks permission to adduce further evidence and a stay.

4

The third and most recent application, made in the same proceedings in the Willesden County Court, is for permission to appeal from an order of Mr Recorder Rayner James made in that court on 27th June last, dismissing Mr Noueiri's application for an extension of a temporary stay of execution which the Recorder had granted on 25th June. Again, this application also seeks permission to adduce further evidence and a stay.

5

This matter has a long history beginning with a mortgage loan of over £90,000 made in 1989 to Mr Noueiri by Paragon (then, I think, either named or trading as National Home Loans). But for present purposes it is not necessary to go back more than a year. It should be said at the outset of recounting the facts that Mr Noueiri is now, most regrettably, seriously ill and it is impossible not to feel sympathy with his position.

6

His position is that he is facing imminent eviction because on 5th January last His Honour Judge Krikler, sitting at Willesden County Court, dismissed Mr Noueiri's appeal from District Judge Dabezies, who had on 24th November 2000 refused to set aside a possession order and a warrant of possession. The District Judge also ordered that no further application should be made, without the permission of the court, unless it was accompanied by a payment into court of the sum of £30,000. Judge Krikler considered but dismissed an argument that Mr Noueiri would soon be able to pay off Paragon by the proceeds of sale of a property in Beruit, Lebanon, and a further argument that the mortgage was an extortionate credit transaction.

7

Mr Noueiri, or Mr Alexander on his behalf (and I shall have to come back to Mr Alexander's position in this matter), wished to make a further appeal. His first step was to seek permission to appeal in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. That was a mistake since Mr Alexander was (on Mr Noueiri's behalf) seeking to make a second appeal and permission to appeal for a second appeal can be granted only by this court, and then only in limited circumstances: that is the effect of section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. On 15th January 2001 Hallett J correctly struck out the notice of appeal as misconceived.

8

Mr Alexander, on behalf of Mr Noueiri, then took the correct course and applied for permission to appeal from this court. That application was heard in open court by Keene LJ on 24th April 2001. Keene LJ refused permission to appeal. At the end of his judgment he said:

"Putting all these matters together and bearing in mind the points of law which were raised originally before the district judge and rejected by him and rejected again by the county court judge, there seems to me to be no important point of principle or practice which is raised in this appeal or any other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. I would go so far as to say that indeed I can see no realistic prospect of success for this appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Krikler. In those circumstances this application for permission and the associated applications must be dismissed."

9

That should have been the end of the road, for reasons which I shall come to. But on 14th May 2001 Mr Alexander (on behalf of Mr Noueiri) filed at the Civil Appeals Office an application for permission to appeal from the order of Hallett J striking out the misconceived notice of appeal to a judge of the Queen's Bench Division.

10

That application was listed before Keene LJ and was heard by him in open court on 20th June. As I have said, he struck out the application under Order 52 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a summary course which is to be taken only for a compelling reason. Keene LJ found that there was a compelling reason. He said on that occasion (towards the end of his judgment):

"Apart from anything else, Hallett J's decision was entirely correct. She had no jurisdiction to entertain that application. No appeal against her order has any prospect of success whatsoever. Moreover, this is, so far as the merits of any appeal are concerned, a matter which has been determined by this court. This is a futile application which has no prospect of success whatsoever."

11

Mr Alexander takes the view that that decision of Keene LJ, although made in open court, is still liable to be called in question before the full court. On the strength of that he obtained a stay of execution from Mr Recorder Rayner James at Willesden County Court on 25th June. However, on 27th June, at a further hearing on notice, the Recorder declined to continue the stay. That is the subject matter of the third application which I have mentioned.

12

In these circumstances, the first and primary issue which we have to consider is whether this court has any power or jurisdiction to hear an appeal from, or to review, Keene LJ's decision of 20th June 2001. Under the old procedure a distinction was drawn (by Order 59 rule 14(12) of the Rules of the Supreme Court) between the determination by a single Lord Justice of an application for permission to appeal and any other determination by a single Lord Justice (for instance of an application for security for costs). That distinction drawn in the Rules of the Supreme Court reflected a provision of the primary legislation then in force, that is section 54(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

13

There has, as I shall explain, been a significant change in procedure in this respect and it is possible that Mr Alexander has recollections of the position under the old procedure. Section 54(6) has been repealed by the Access to Justice Act 1999 as part of far-reaching changes both in the requirement for permission to appeal and in the powers now exercisable by a single Lord Justice. The requirement for permission to appeal is now covered by section 54(4) and section 55 of the Access to Justice Act. As regards the powers of the single Lord Justice, the essential provisions are now as follows.

14

Section 54 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides in subsections (1) to (4) as follows:

"(1) This section relates to the civil division of the Court of Appeal; and in this section `court', except where the context otherwise requires, means a court of that division.

(2) Subject as follows, a court shall be duly constituted for the purpose of exercising any of its jurisdiction if it consists of one or more judges.

(3) The Master of the Rolls may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, give (or vary or revoke) directions about the minimum number of judges of which a court must consist if it is to be duly constituted for the purpose of any description of proceedings.

(4) The Master of the Rolls, or any Lord Justice of Appeal designated a him, may (subject to any directions under subsection (3)) determine the number of judges of which a court is to consist for the purpose of any particular proceedings."

15

No directions have so far been given by the Master of the Rolls, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, under subsection (3). The consequence is that, if any type of application is listed (under the authority of the Master of the Rolls or a supervising Lord Justice) before a single Lord Justice, that Lord Justice is for all relevant purposes a court of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. That is consonant with Order 52, rule 16(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides:

"At the request of a party a hearing will be held to reconsider a decision of

(a)a single judge, or

(b) a court officer made without a hearing."

16

Those last four words are very important. These changes have simplified and, to my mind, have rationalised the old procedure.

17

It follows, in my judgment, that this court has no power to hear an appeal from, or to review or revisit, Keene LJ's order made on 20th June last. Mr Alexander suggested that it was a matter which could be done as a matter of inherent jurisdiction. However, the Court of Appeal is, as has repeatedly been said, a court governed entirely by statute and its jurisdiction is statutory. It appears to me that all three applications before us, together with their ancillary applications, are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Harris and Others v Society of Lloyd's
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 9 September 2008
    ...requirements of the legal professional bodies) in exceptional circumstances: D. v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724, Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri [2001] 1 W.L.R. 4 As I have already recorded, the court has already concluded that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to al......
  • Queen on Application of Qureshi & Others v HM Courts & Tribunal Service
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 July 2013
    ...No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) Mr Justice Cranston 1 Mr Winston Leachman has made an application to set aside a Noueiri order which I made on 27 February 2013. I made this order against him to prevent him assisting the claimants. The result of the order is that ......
  • N, Re (A Child)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 June 2008
  • R (M) v Ashworth Hospital Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 July 2003
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Abus de droit, querulence et parties non representees.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 49 No. 1, January 2004
    • 1 January 2004
    ...could provide a firm foundation for a judge not wishing him to be present as a "McKenzie friend". (55) [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2357, [2001] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1402 (56) La Cour le presente en ces termes, aux paras. 18-19. : Mr. Alexander described himseif and his history in an application he made for a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT