England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Peppitt QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 13th February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: There has been a long running dispute between the applicant, ST, and the father of their child in relation to his education. The dispute was frequently listed before His Honour Judge Peppitt QC, and on 21st July 2000 he made an order in relation to P, the first paragraph of which required Mrs T to enrol P for full time education at a school from the commencement of the Michaelmas term in September 2000. Mrs T returned to Judge Peppitt on 4th September and obtained his permission to appeal. He also granted a stay of the order in paragraph 1 for 14 days and thereafter provided that the appeal was pursued timeously.
2. In my opinion, Mrs T was extremely fortunate to have obtained permission to appeal from Judge Peppitt since, in essence, his determination had been one of discretion, not one of principle. However, she wasted the permission, and equally the stay, by failing to act timeously. Her notice of appeal to this court was not received until 27th November and, accordingly, she sought an extension of time, and it is that application for an extension of time which has been listed for hearing today.
3. In the meantime, of course, the life of the child has continued to evolve. There was a hearing before His Honour Judge Poulton on 14th December 2000, in which the judge quite rightly held that the stay granted by Judge Peppitt was no longer operative as a result of her failure to act timeously. The judge further commented that the grounds of appeal submitted by Mrs T did not read convincingly. Accordingly, the judge went on to consider the future. He expressed the view that something ought to be done, and he said that he intended to attach a penal notice to the order in order to achieve some movement, but that he would defer attaching the penal notice to allow Mrs T to make inquiries as to commencing P in school in January 2001. He made it plain that any indulgence he had shown to the mother on that day would not be repeated if P was not at school prior to the next appointment on 18th January 2001. What happened on that day I know not. But I might infer from Mrs T's failure to attend this morning that there has been some progress, if not resolution. Be that as it may, the application for extension should in all the circumstances of the case be refused. I am very doubtful whether permission was properly granted in the first place with respect to the circuit judge and, furthermore, it would be quite wrong to introduce this case to appellate review six months after the order in the county court, when the life of this child and the opportunity for this child's secondary education is ebbing away so fast. All those issues are much better left dealt with in the court of trial. For these reasons this application for extension is dismissed.
Order: Application refused. (Order does not form part of approved Judgment)