Retired footballer Stephen Finnan’s permission to appeal certified ‘totally without merit’

A retired Liverpool footballer’s application for permission to appeal an order over a bankruptcy petition has been certified totally without merit by a High Court judge.

Former Republic of Ireland international Stephen Finnan (pictured centre, above) sought permission to appeal an order which set out standard directions for the final hearing of the petition.

Finnan appealed against the order on a number of grounds including that the judge ‘failed to address the issue of the petition never having been allocated’ to the business and property court lists, that the petition should have been transferred to the High Court due to the ‘complexities, sums involved and public interest’ and that the judge had erred in considering whether the consent order had been properly made as well as shown apparent bias.

Charles Russell Speechlys, which brought the petition against Finnan based on a £33,124.12 costs order which followed the dismissal of contempt proceedings brought by Finnan against a partner at the firm, opposed the application and argued permission to appeal and the appeal should be refused.

The hearing, before Mr Justice Mellor sitting in the Rolls Building, follows a long history of litigation. The firm was instructed by Finnan in 2016 in a dispute with his brother over a property development business. In 2022, he brought a professional negligence claim against Charles Russell Speechlys. The firm denied the allegations against it arguing Finnan’s pleaded case on causation was defective. Finnan’s £6m claim was struck out, following an application by the firm, in 2023. Costs orders were subsequently made against Finnan.

Finnan said the ‘court has already decided that I have a real case to advance’ and there was a ‘triable issue against the petitioner [Charles Russell Speechlys]’.

Annabelle Wang, for the firm, told the court Finnan accepts that the order was made ‘by a specialist judge’ and that the issues in the case ‘were not sufficiently complex to justify transferring proceedings to this court’. She added that the ‘multitude of costs orders which the petitioner has against’ Finnan ‘are not relied on as petition debt in any event. They are judgment debts and do not create sufficient complexity’.

Giving judgment, Mr Justice Mellor said the ‘petition was properly transferred to the County Court of Central London to District Judge Revere as a specialist judge’ who was entitled to make the order she did.

Referring to Finnan’s argument that the petition should be moved to the High Court, the judge said ‘the issues in this petition are not complex’ and he could see ‘no error whatsoever in district judge Revere’s refusal to transfer proceedings to the High Court’ adding that the ‘case management decision’ was one which an appellate court would be ‘slow to interfere’ with.

Turning to the allegation of apparent bias, the judge described the ground as ‘hopeless’ adding that there was ‘no prospect whatsoever of Mr Finnan establishing any bias on the part of district judge Revere’.

‘Stepping back from the detail, it is surprising that Mr Finnan has challenged this directions order of district judge Revere. As I have found, his complaints are largely procedural and have no substance. I form a strong view his appeal simply amounts to an attempt on his part to derail final hearing on this petition for as long as possible. I refuse permission to appeal and dismiss the appeal. I will also certify this appeal as totally without merit. It was at all times, in my judgment, completely hopeless.’

Finnan was also ordered to pay £8,000 costs.