How can a court refuse leave to appeal to higher courts?

[Kermit power]

Taken from the bank charges story, but I've started a separate thread so it doesn't get drowned in there.

We have a structure of courts, from the lowliest right up to the Lords, the Supreme Court, the EU court of justice and the like.

As I understand it, at each stage (until you reach the top of the tree) you have the possibility of appealing a decision to the next level up.

How is it that a lower court can hand down a judgement and then also say that it cannot be appealed to the higher court? Surely that is potentially a barrier to justice? If the higher courts exist, in part, to confirm the validity of decisions taken in lower courts, then how can those lower courts be able to say that the higher court is not needed to confirm that validity?

I do understand that it can be costly and time-consuming to run a case through the supreme court, but surely if someone is willing to take the risk of losing the costs and legal fees associated with the case if they do decide to take it further, that's a fair solution?

Could one of our lawyer people explain under what circumstances a court can refuse the right to appeal to a higher court, and how it is justified?

[loltolhurst]

can they also answer why in the days of modern communication its takes so bloody long to do anything with courts??!?

[Plotloss]

I thought you could only appeal if there was ambiguity or failure in process?

Presumably the Judge in this case was of sufficient superiority to make the call that nothing further would be added to the argument by appealing it at higher courts in the Eurozone or the like.

[Lurking Lawyer]

Kermit power said:

How is it that a lower court can hand down a judgement and then also say that it cannot be appealed to the higher court? Surely that is potentially a barrier to justice?

You have two shots at seeking permission to appeal.

You can apply to the trial judge who has just ruled against you. S/he may or may not think that there is a valid arguable point that might succeed on appeal.

If the trial judge turns you down, you can make an application for permission to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal. It may or may not uphold the trial judge's refusal to allow an appeal.

The same principle applies to appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, but it's generally a lot harder to get them to give permission (or at least it was when it was the old House of Lords) - they have to be persuaded that there is a point of novel law or one of widespread application before they'll entertain an appeal.

The European Court of Justice is a bit different. It isn't technically in the UK court hierarchy (which is county court/high court -> Court of Appeal -> Supreme Court) but our courts can (and are indeed obliged to) refer a matter to the ECJ is interpretation of a point of European law is required. The ECJ then considers the point, rules on the correct interpretation and then remits the case to the national court for them to apply the interpretation to the facts of the case.

There is no direct right of appeal (at least as far as I remember from my dim and distant memory of studying EC law at university) no direct right of appeal to the ECJ by the individual. A matter has to be referred by a national court.

Edited by Lurking Lawyer on Wednesday 25th November 13:40

[Halb]

IL_JDM said:

If this was America, could Judge Judy do something?

Or Crown court?