The Supreme Court refused Piotr Skoczylas’s application for an extension of time to bring a prospective application for leave to appeal, but extended the time available to make that application by one week, until 4pm on 19 February 2025.
In a ruling delivered electronically on 5 February 2025, the Court said there was no existing application for leave to appeal before it. It nevertheless treated Mr Skoczylas’s request as relating to an intended application, assuming without deciding that it had jurisdiction to do so.
Mr Skoczylas had asked to defer applying for leave to appeal an interlocutory order made by the Court of Appeal on 19 December 2024 and perfected on 22 January 2025. He argued that the Court of Appeal appeal had not concluded and that it would be more logical to make one application covering that order and a possible appeal from the eventual decision. He also cited unresolved matters in the Court of Appeal, including costs and other applications.
The Supreme Court said it had not been given the substance of the underlying appeal or the interlocutory proceedings, and could not assess whether the issues were related. It emphasised that leave to appeal is not a right: an applicant must show that the case meets the constitutional threshold of general public importance or that an appeal is in the interests of justice. The Court said no explanation had been provided as to how the proposed appeal could meet that threshold.
The Court also said each Court of Appeal order must be considered on its own merits. It was speculative whether Mr Skoczylas would face an adverse final order, whether the interlocutory and final orders raised common issues, or whether an appeal from a final order could provide an adequate remedy.
The Court found no compelling reason to grant the requested deferral and refused the application. It described the request as an unnecessary procedural detour, saying an application for leave should generally be made within the time limit after the relevant order is perfected, with related matters brought to the Court’s attention at the same time.
Despite that refusal, the Court said that, to advance the matter without further contention, it would extend the period for the intended application for leave to appeal from 12 February to 4pm on 19 February 2025. The ruling did not determine whether leave to appeal should be granted.