B1/2001/1356

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1433
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM TRURO COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Tyzack)
								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2

							Friday 14th September, 2001
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE THORPE

- - - - - -

G (CHILDREN)

- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

THE APPLICANT appeared on her own behalf (Maternal Aunt)

THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE THORPE: Mrs S is the maternal aunt of three children E, born in 1992; S, born in 1993 and T born in 1997 to her sister, who sadly has a history of mental illness. The only issue that I have to review this morning is the management of an application which she made for leave to apply under the Children Act 1998 for orders in respect of residence and/or contact. That leave was necessary because she falls without that band of persons who have a right of application by statute. 
2.	The application came before District Judge Thomas on 12th April 2001 and he dismissed it. Accordingly, Mrs S appealed to the Circuit Judge and her appeal came before His Honour Judge Tyzack QC on 1st June following. He delivered a relatively brief judgment in which he upheld the order of the District Judge, holding that there was no merit in the appeal and that the order of the District Judge had been fully justified. By a notice received in this court on 20th June, Mrs S sought permission to appeal and that application has been listed for hearing this morning. 
3.	Mrs S is a police officer of obvious experience and ability and she has very profound concerns about the three children of her disabled sister. But there has been prolonged local authority involvement and in the court below both the District Judge and the Circuit Judge paid particular heed to the opinion of the section 7 reporter, a social worker named Mr O'Looney. His advice was that Mrs Sykes' application for leave to apply should be refused and both judges obviously relied to some extent on his advice. Mrs S is highly critical of Mr O'Looney, whom she says should not be bearing the responsibility that he did and she says that she should have had the opportunity of cross‑examining him. 
4.	But in the end the fundamental obstacle which confronts Mrs S in her application today is that this application is caught by section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. This court must not grant permission where there has been an appeal in the court of trial unless there is demonstrated some important point of law or practice or some other compelling reason. That is a particularly difficult hurdle to surmount where the judges in the court of trial have simply exercised a broad statutory discretion to grant or to refuse permission. Nothing that Mrs S has said this morning begins to meet the very high test set by section 55. Although I recognise the strength of her feelings and her determination to do what she sincerely believes to be right for these children, I have no alternative but to refuse this application for permission. 
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused.
(Order not part of approved judgment)