From Mental Health Law Online
This Order sets out the general rule that appeals from the county courts other than in family proceedings will lie to the Court rather than to the Court of Appeal, and sets out the exceptions. In force 2/5/00.
(Official) Explanatory Note
The primary purpose of this Order is to provide that from 2nd May 2000 appeals from the county courts other than in family proceedings will, in most cases, lie to the High Court rather than to the Court of Appeal (article 3(1)).
Appeals from decisions of masters, registrars and district judges of the High Court will continue to lie to a judge of the High Court (article 2). Similarly appeals from district judges in county courts will continue to lie to a judge of a county court (article 3(2)). These routes of appeal are currently set out in RSC Order 58 (Schedule 1 to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998) and CCR Order 13, rule 1 and Order 37, rule 6 (Schedule 2 to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998). Because these Orders will be revoked from 2nd May by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000/221), it is necessary to provide for the routes of appeal in this Order.
If the decision to be appealed is a final decision in a claim allocated to the multi-track or made in specialist proceedings or was itself made on appeal, the appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal irrespective of the court of first instance (articles 4 and 5).
Any cases with a hyperlink to this legislation will automatically be added here. There may be other relevant cases without a hyperlink, so please check the mental health case law page.
- Massie v H (2011) EWCA Civ 115 — The general rule is that an appeal shall lie from a decision of a county court to the High Court. One exception is for final decisions in Part 7 CPR multi-track cases, which go to the Court of Appeal. (1) This exception does not apply in nearest relative displacement cases under s29 MHA as the application is made under Part 8 CPR; no other exception applied. (2) The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and that a previous consent order was therefore a nullity. (3) Because of the passage of time and costs involved, rather than abandon the matter or simply transfer it to the High Court, the case was transferred to the High Court for one of the Court of Appeal judges to consider it as a High Court judge there and then.