SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 March 1893)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this measure is intended to deal 1026 with what the experience of this House has shown to be really an abuse. Your Lordships are aware that the right of appeal from the Courts of Appeal to this House exists at the will of any suitor. Of course, if the appellant is unsuccessful in his appeal, he subjects himself to the liability to pay costs to the other party, and he can only appeal upon depositing a security which ensures the payment of, at all events, a considerable sum for costs if he is unsuccessful. This acts as a check upon improper appeals, and renders them much more unlikely than if there were no such security required. But not unfrequently application is made by a person for leave to appeal in formâ pauperis. As matters stand at present, if the appellant makes out that he or she is in point of fact a pauper, according to the established practice, there is no alternative but to give leave to appeal in formâ pauperis; and the result is, that the appellant getting that leave is under no liability to pay costs to the other parties, and may prosecute an appeal which is utterly groundless, compel the other parties to be at considerable cost in coming to represent their case before your Lordships' House, and consequently inflicting upon them a very grievous hardship. It has occurred to those who have had experience of these matters upon the Appeal Committee that in many cases there is no substantial ground of appeal. That has been perfectly apparent to us when cases have come before us. Of course, the application to appeal in formâ pauperis is only made by persons against whom decisions have been given by the Courts of Appeal, and there is, therefore, the strongest primâ facie case against them. It has appeared to all of us that a great abuse would be prevented if the Appeal Committee, upon applications in formâ pauperis, before giving leave to appeal, should look into the case and see if there are grounds for appealing; and if they find there are not that they should refuse leave to appeal in formâ pauperis. That would not interfere with any rights. Of course, the right of appeal would still exist as at present; but if persons come and ask to be exempted from the ordinary liability to pay costs if unsuccessful, it is only fair and just that in asking for that indulgence they should be put upon terms, and the indulgence will not be granted 1027 unless the Appeal Committee finds upon examination that there is no primâ facie ground of appeal. This, of course, will give a considerable amount of labour to noble and learned Lords, who dispose of appeals in your Lordships' House in looking into such cases, but they are all most ready to accept that burden and responsibility for the purpose of putting an end to what has been proved to be a serious abuse.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, the Bill had only been circulated that morning, and he thought noble Lords should have the opportunity of knowing something about the matter when a Bill of this kind was brought to the attention of the House restricting leave to appeal in formâ pauperis. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he remembered a case in which a man was allowed to sue in formâ pauperis; and though he lost his case, its trial was a great satisfaction to himself and others. He thought the Bill would not lose anything by its consideration being adjourned until after the Recess, and, therefore, as none of the Law Lords were present, he moved the adjournment of the Debate.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion. I may inform him that both Lord Halsbury and Lord Ashbourne are in favour of the Bill. Nobody has expressed his opinion against this abuse than my noble and learned Predecessor. Every Member of your Lordships' House, who ordinarily takes part in hearing appeals in giving judgment in such cases as recognising the necessity of such a measure as this. Although those belonging to the legal profession are not supposed to be always unanimous with regard to legal reforms, I can assure the noble Lord that this is one reform about which no difference of opinion exists.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
May I, as an old lawyer, earnestly join my voice in this matter to that of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack? I happen to know that both Lord Hals- 1028 bury and Lord Ashbourne are entirely in favour of this measure.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, after what had been stated, he would withdraw the Motion.