Application for permission to appeal

Part 62 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the detailed procedures for applications to the court under the Arbitration Act 1996. CPR Part 62 is supplemented by a Practice Direction which amplifies the requirements of Part 62. With effect from 1 October 2010, a new para 12 is substituted in the Practice Direction. Its effect is to provide statutory confirmation of the judicial attitude to the hearing of applications for permission to appeal, namely that the issues at stake have to be concisely presented and capable of resolution within a short time by the judge. There had been a growing tendency for ever-longer applications for permission to appeal, an approach now stamped upon by the court.

Content of the application

Under PD 62, para 12.1, an application for permission to appeal must satisfy the following requirements: (a) it must comply with the requirements of Rule 62.4(1), so that the claim form must include a concise statement of the remedy claimed and the questions to be resolved by the court, give details of the award and specify that the application is made under s69. This is new, although implicit in the old provision; (b) it must identify the question of law. This reproduces the old provision; (c) it must state the grounds (but not the argument) on which the party challenges the award and contends that permission should be given. This is a modified version of the old provision, taking out any statement of the arguments in support of an appeal, which are now separately provided for in (d); (d) it must be accompanied by a skeleton argument in support of the argument – this must be printed in 12 point font with 1½ line spacing, should not exceed 15 pages in length (if longer, there must be a written explanation of why that was necessary) and must contain an estimate of how long the court is likely to need to deal with the application on the papers. This is a new provision and constitutes the most significant change in procedure. There are now clear limits imposed upon the length of skeleton arguments, with the need for an explanation if those limits are exceeded. A word limit is not imposed as such but, given the criteria, anything much more than 5,000 words is clearly going to be excessive; and (e) the award must be appended. This is a new provision.