England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
(MR RECORDER MERRIMAN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Tuesday 31 July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: This is a renewed application by Mr Anil Sharma for permission to appeal against an order made by Mr Recorder Merriman in the Central London County Court on 1 March 2001, when he dismissed Mr Sharma's application for an order that he discharge his liability under a costs order by instalments.
2. Mr Sharma is the defendant in the action. The costs order in question was made by His Honour Judge Goldstein on 16 March 2000 when he refused Mr Sharma's application to amend his Defence in the action so as to include a Counterclaim. Judge Goldstein ordered Mr Sharma to pay the costs of the application which he assessed at £3,204.76. I refused permission to appeal on the papers on 6 July 2001. Mr Sharma makes this renewed application in person.
3. At the outset of the hearing this morning I informed Mr Sharma that I had received a letter from Messrs Edmonds Bowen, the solicitors to the claimant in the action, Sunrise Radio. Mr Sharma confirmed that he had received a copy of that letter and had read it.
4. Sunrise Radio claims some £5,700 as being monies allegedly due in respect of broadcast advertisements placed by Mr Sharma, trading as Asian Film Academy.
5. Mr Sharma's primary defence is that there was an agreement between him and Mr Lit of Sunrise Radio that the debt would be written off. However, Mr Sharma has also pleaded a number of other defences going well beyond that limited plea, including pleas that the agreement for the placing of the advertisement was procured by fraud and that Sunrise Radio lacked the necessary licence from the relevant authority.
6. Mr Sharma sought to amend his Defence to include a Counterclaim for damages in the sum of some £5 million. In his counterclaim Mr Sharma sought to allege malicious falsehood against the claimant, together with other serious allegations. Mr Sharma also sought to join Mr Lit personally as a defendant to the Counterclaim. The claimant opposed the application for the amendment of the Defence to plead the Counterclaim and Judge Goldstein refused the application.
7. On this application I am not in any way concerned with that part of Judge Goldstein's order which dismissed Mr Sharma's application to amend his Defence so as to plead a Counterclaim. This application is concerned solely with the order for costs which Judge Goldstein made against Mr Sharma on that application.
8. On 27 July 2000 Mr Sharma issued an application for an order that he discharge his costs liability under Judge Goldstein's order by instalments. The application initially came before District Judge Silverman on 17 October 2000. The District Judge, in the exercise of his discretion, dismissed the application. The application was renewed before Mr Recorder Merriman on 1 March 2001 when it was again dismissed. It is against Mr Recorder Merriman's order dismissing the application that Mr Sharma now seeks permission to appeal.
9. In his careful judgment the judge began by reminding himself of the discretion conferred on the court by section 71 of the County Courts Act 1984 to provide for the payment of an order for costs by instalments. He then proceeded to consider the various factors in the instant case relevant to Mr Sharma's application. He noted that Mr Sharma had been living on income support for some time, that he was currently suffering from a disability, although that disability might have been alleviated somewhat by an operation which he had had in November 2000 buthatt, in essence, Mr Sharma's position was the same as it had been when he made his application to Judge Goldstein in March 2000.
10. The judge further noted that, despite the fact that Judge Goldstein had given Mr Sharma until 6 July 2000 to pay the full amount of the costs, Mr Sharma had not made any payment on account. The judge then referred to the CPR relating to costs and to the general rule that costs orders must be complied with within 14 days (see CPR Part 44). The judge continued:

"It is a feature of the new Civil Procedure Rules that the court has jurisdiction to be exercised in order to bring home to the parties to litigation the costs of the litigation they are conducting. The court has a general discretion to grant time for the payment of costs but, in the exercise of my discretion, I consider it would be wrong in this case to do that. I am not satisfied that I know that Mr Sharma has explained the reason why he has incurred substantial credit card debts. I am not satisfied that he has any good reason for making no attempt to comply with Judge Goldstein's order an making no payment whatsoever to the claimants. I am not satisfied that it is reasonable to make an order that would take eight years to comply with."

11. The judge also said that he was affected by comments which Judge Goldstein had made in the course of his judgment in which the judge had referred to the fact that Mr Sharma was in effect intent on pursuing a vendetta of some kind against Mr Lit. The judge concluded his judgment:

"In all the circumstances, I consider that this is not a case in which I should make an order for the payment of these costs by instalments, and I dismiss the application."

12. In the course of his oral submissions, which Mr Sharma has made with commendable courtesy and brevity, he informed me that his disability had lessened and that he was recovering from his condition. However, he further confirmed that his financial position is as parlous as it was when he appeared before the judge. He confirmed that he is on income support and that he has very little spare cash.
13. In his proposed grounds of appeal Mr Sharma seeks to contend that the judge erred in law in failing to make an order for payment by instalments and that the judge's refusal was a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial). Mr Sharma further contends that the judge overlooked the fact that,as it is "I am the victim in this case". This is a submission which he has repeated before me orally.
14. In his written submissions in support of the present application, Mr Sharma refers to the fact that he is not a lawyer and that he is accordingly at a disadvantage in presenting this application. He also refers to his "hand to mouth financial situation".
15. I take full account of the fact that Mr Sharma has no legal experience and that he is inevitably at some disadvantage in presenting the present application. However, as Judge Goldstein put it in the course of his judgment:

"The fact that he is not a lawyer cannot turn an unsustainable claim into a sustainable claim."

16. In my judgment, Mr Sharma's application for permission to appeal against the judge's refusal to allow him to discharge his liability for costs by instalments is hopeless. I can see no possible grounds on which the judge's exercise of his discretion could be the subject of a challenge in the court of appeal. The judge reviewed the case carefully, referred to the statutory provision conferring a discretion upon him and exercised his discretion in a manner which seems to me to be invulnerable to any challenge on appeal.
17. Accordingly, for those reasons, I refuse permission to appeal.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.