Background
Paul and Susannah Evans financed their Swansea property through mortgages from Swansea Building Society. After the interest-only 2020 mortgage expired without repayment, the Society obtained possession based on the expired term and other breaches. The Evanses pursued multiple applications and appeals challenging decisions arising from the possession proceedings.
In February 2026, Ritchie J struck out their application for permission to appeal an order of HHJ Kember and marked it totally without merit. The Evanses then requested by email an oral reconsideration under CPR 52.4. Although Ritchie J had not made an order under CPR 52.4(3) barring such a request, he struck it out because it was not made by formal application notice and because the Evanses had not obtained permission under limited civil restraint orders.
The Evanses appealed and also sought to introduce fresh evidence and a new ground questioning execution of the mortgage charge. They further requested an injunction preventing the Society from selling the property, possession of which had already been enforced.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the narrow ground that the Evanses were entitled to request oral reconsideration. Because Ritchie J had not barred reconsideration under CPR 52.4(3), the request could be made by email without a formal application notice. The Court did not decide whether the limited civil restraint orders independently required prior permission because the Society did not oppose the appeal on this narrow basis.
Rather than remit the matter, the Court exercised the High Court’s powers and conducted the reconsideration itself. It concluded that the application for permission to appeal was entirely without merit, noting both procedural deficiencies and the lack of substance in the proposed challenges to the charge. It refused the fresh-evidence and amendment applications; it also observed that, even if the legal mortgage had been defectively executed, the signed 2020 mortgage documentation and advance of funds created an equitable mortgage capable of supporting possession.
The Court also refused an injunction against sale. There was no serious issue to be tried, the Evanses could not provide a meaningful cross-undertaking in damages, continued delay would prejudice the Society, and any alleged sale at an undervalue could be addressed through proceedings concerning the final mortgage balance.
Key Takeaways
- Unless a judge makes an order under CPR 52.4(3), a party whose permission application was refused on paper may request oral reconsideration, and no formal application notice is required.
- The Court of Appeal may conduct the reconsideration itself rather than remit the matter where further proceedings would unnecessarily consume court resources.
- A procedural error in denying reconsideration does not establish that permission to appeal should be granted; here, the Court corrected the error but dismissed the reconsidered application as entirely without merit.
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies the procedure governing oral reconsideration of paper refusals of permission to appeal. A finding that an application is totally without merit does not by itself eliminate the right to request reconsideration: the judge must make the order contemplated by CPR 52.4(3).
It also demonstrates that an appellate court may remedy denial of that procedural right without remitting the case, while separately rejecting attempts to expand the appeal through immaterial fresh evidence or collateral challenges to an underlying possession order.