'Revolution' restricts rights of appealMark Davies considers the new Civil Appeal Rules which came into effect on 2 May 2000, as part of the on-going 'revolution' brought about by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.For most litigators, 26 April 1999 will forever be etched on the memory as 'Woolf day'.

But as yet, no name has been coined for 2 May 2000, that being the date when the new Civil Appeal Rules came into effect.

Perhaps the central aims of the rules in pt 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) has been to introduce a uniform system of appeals and to weed out and to deter unmeritorious appeals.

Several months on, how are these changes working in practice, and are they to be welcomed?The most important lesson for practitioners is that it is more vital than ever to get things right and be properly prepared at the initial hearing, as the opportunity to appeal against the decision is now more restricted.

Permission will be needed to pursue an appeal in virtually all cases, obtained either from the lower court or appellate court.

This is a radical departure from the previous rules where a party had an automatic right of appeal on interlocutory orders and in most cases on final orders.Permission will only be granted where the appellant can show a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason.

The appeal court's decision on this is final and there is no further right of appeal, which was a point hammered home by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex p Eastaway (The Times, 8 November 2000).There has also been a notable shift in the court's approach in hearing the appeal, as all appeals will now be limited to a review of the lower court's decision and the appeal will only be allowed if the court considers the lower court's decision was wrong or unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity.

The new test imposes a tough hurdle on appellants and a complete re-hearing, such as an appeal on a summary judgment application, is a thing of the past.The rule now is that there should only be one appeal and second or subsequent appeals are to be referred to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal will only allow such appeals where they raise (i) an important point of principle or practice; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason.The end result is that there is a much more limited right of appeal from a decision of the High Court or county court.

Where the lower courts have been given discretion under the CPRs, any appeal court will only interfere with the lower court's decision in quite limited circumstances, which was a point emphasised by the Court of Appeal in Tanfern v Cameron McDonald and Another [2000]2 All ER 801, which remains the leading case on pt 52 to date.Coupled with this, the route of appeal has been altered and the general rule is that the appeal is now made to the next level of the judiciary (that is, District Judge to County Court Judge to High Court Judge - but this is subject to exceptions).

The overall effect of pt 52 has been to devolve power down the judiciary.Whether these changes are to be welcomed really depends upon a party's perspective.

An appellant is probably less likely to be able to overturn a lower court's decision.

As with other parts of the CPRs, the effect of pt 52 has also been to front-load costs with additional burdens being imposed on appellants at an early stage in the appeal process, and it is debatable as to how far this really assists the court.

More cynically minded readers may consider this to be a useful way of deterring appeals.There is likely to be more inconsistency in the judicial process with greater divergence in judicial decisions, as lower court's judgments are less likely to be overturned on appeal, and fewer cases will end up before the Court of Appeal.

In light of this, the rules have caused surprisingly little debate, and it may be that many practitioners welcome the greater discretion which has been handed down to their local courts.

At the moment it appears the rules have had no discernable impact on the Court of Appeal's workload.However, if they do lead to less delay, then this is surely to be welcomed, particularly as the Court of Appeal is likely soon to be heavily involved in dealing with Human Rights Act issues.

Anyone dealing with an appeal under pt 52 for the first time would be advised to read Lord Justice Brooke's judgment in Tanfern for guidance.Mark Davies is a solicitor atCity-based Paisner & Co