This Application was brought pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(e), as an appeal to costs only, and sought permission of the Court to appeal a Chamber Judge’s Decision dismissing an Appeal of a Review Officer’s Decision. The Applicant alleged that the Chambers Judge erred in ruling the Appeal of the Review Officer’s decision was time barred and erred in upholding the assessment to allow doubling up of costs as against the liable Defendants.

The Court considered Rule 10.26 which addresses appeals of a Review Officer’s Decision. Specifically, 10.26(2) provides that the Appeal is an appeal on the record of proceedings before the Review Officer; and Rule 10.26(4) provides that the “appellant must file and serve on the respondent to the appeal, within one month after the date of the review officer’s decision” notice of the appeal, the record of proceedings and any further written argument. Based on the above, the Court held that new arguments are not properly presented on appeal, and certainly not as the basis for permission to appeal.

The test for permission to appeal a decision that relates to costs only is: (i) the applicant must identify a good, arguable case having enough merit to warrant scrutiny by the court; (ii) the issues must be important, both to the parties and in general; (iii) the appeal must have some practical utility; and (iv) the court should consider the effect of delay in proceedings caused by the appeal. The Court denied permission to appeal because it concluded that the Applicant did not meet the test for permission to appeal.