Background
Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc obtained a High Court order under section 450(3) of the Companies Act 2014 convening a shareholder meeting to consider a scheme of arrangement with BAWAG PSK. Piotr Skoczylas and the other appellants appealed, seeking to prevent the meeting from proceeding without a prior determination that majority and minority shareholders should constitute separate classes. The Court of Appeal urgently listed the appeal for 8 July 2026 so that it could be decided before the scheduled shareholder meeting on 30 July.
Mr. Skoczylas requested permission to participate remotely, relying ultimately on a medical report stating that his presence or availability was required for his mother between 6 and 10 July and that he should not risk her well-being by travelling internationally. The Court found that he did not adequately explain the care required, why alternative arrangements could not be made, or why he could not attend in person. After permission for remote participation was refused, he did not appear on 8 July, and his appeal was struck out for failure to prosecute it. He later applied under Court of Appeal Practice Direction CA14 to vary or rescind that judgment and order, alleging a denial of constitutional justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court refused the application because it did not satisfy the threshold in paragraph A.3 of Practice Direction CA14 for a hearing on the merits. It held that the appeal had been struck out for the straightforward reason that Mr. Skoczylas failed to appear and prosecute it. There was no surprise or mistake, and no evidence sufficient to establish that he was unable to attend in person.
The Court rejected the contention that fairness required it to provide a remote link, adjourn the appeal, or decide it solely on the filed materials. In-person hearings were the default; Mr. Skoczylas had not shown a good reason for an exception; an adjournment would undermine the Court’s control of its lists; and allowing a litigant to compel determination on the papers through non-appearance would be intolerable and could unfairly deprive the company of an oral hearing. The Court found no error of law or denial of fair procedures. It also expressed doubt about the validity of Mr. Skoczylas’s remotely sworn grounding affidavit because the stated circumstances did not show that attendance before an appropriate officer was impracticable.
Key Takeaways
- A party who fails to attend and prosecute an appeal on its scheduled hearing date may have the appeal struck out.
- Remote participation is an exception to the default of an in-person hearing and must be supported by a sufficiently explained and justified application.
- A litigant cannot force an adjournment or a decision on the papers by declining to appear after remote access has been refused.
Why It Matters
The ruling affirms the Court of Appeal’s authority to control its hearing arrangements and lists, including in urgent corporate proceedings. Medical or caregiving circumstances may support remote participation, but the evidence must address why personal attendance is impracticable and why reasonable alternatives are unavailable.
It also illustrates the demanding threshold under Practice Direction CA14 for reopening a final appellate judgment: forceful allegations of constitutional unfairness are insufficient without evidence of an error of law, procedural injustice, surprise, or mistake.