C/OO/3705
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 280
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE FERRIS)
								Royal Courts of Justice
								Strand
								London WC2A 2LL

								Thursday 22 February 2001
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE DYSON

- - - - - -

HELEN DOROTHY FORD
Claimant/Respondent

- v -

GERRIT MULDER
Defendant/Applicant

- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040  Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

The Applicant did not attend and was not represented.

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

- - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE DYSON: This case was listed for 11 o'clock. It is now just after 11.15 am. It has been called on but there is no appearance by Mr Mulder. Moreover, I understand that he has not been in communication with the court to indicate whether he would or would not attend this hearing. 
2.	I have read the papers and, in my judgment, this is a hopeless application. It is an application for permission to appeal the decision of Ferris J, who had himself refused permission to appeal from a decision from the circuit judge in the Lambeth County Court. There can be no appeal to this court from such a decision (see section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999). 
3.	The judge did, however, also order Mr Mulder to pay costs, which he assessed at £647.07. There could, in theory, be an application for permission to appeal that order for costs (see the decision of this court in Clark v Perks [2000] 4 All ER page 1 at 6J). This being a second tier appeal, Mr Mulder would have to show either that the order for costs raised an important point of principle or practice, or that there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. It is absolutely plain that he comes nowhere near being able to satisfy either of those criteria. What he clearly cannot do is to attempt to circumvent section 54(4) by making an attack on the substantive decision to order possession under the guise of an attack on a costs order. There has to be a free-standing challenge to the costs order which satisfies the requirements of section 55(1) of the 1999 Act. 
4.	This is a hopeless application and I refuse permission to appeal. 
Order: Application refused.