The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Court of Appeal in England and Wales: Sharing the Appellate Load

Abstract

AbstractThe civil justice system in England and Wales is hierarchical in terms of both its first instance jurisdiction and its appellate jurisdiction. Appeals lie from first instance decisions to either the next judicial tier within a court or to a superior court. Second appeals cannot but be brought in the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords, which exercised judicial appellate jurisdiction from the middle ages, and its statutory successor the UK Supreme Court, only hear appeals from inferior territorial appellate courts within the United Kingdom. This hierarchical structure has, historically, ensured that neither the House of Lords nor the UK Supreme Court have suffered from a surfeit of appeals. Furthermore, the fact that appeals to the House of Lords and the UK Supreme Court (a) are limited to appeals on questions of law, and only those which raise issues of general public importance, and (b) are only permitted if permission to appeal is granted has ensured that the number of appeals they hear has remained relatively static historically. By way of contrast, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales has undergone periods of severe increases in its caseload; it recently underwent such an increase, and reforms were introduced to reduce its burgeoning caseload. This increase came despite appeals to the Court of Appeal being subject to a permission to appeal requirement, albeit one that is not as restrictive as that to the UK Supreme Court. This contribution describes those issues, and particularly the reforms introduced in October 2016 aimed at reducing the Court of Appeal’s workload.KeywordsSupreme CourtCourt of appealPermission to appeal requirements