The case confirms that on an application for leave to appeal, it is insufficient merely to identify legal error; the applicant must demonstrate a question of principle, general importance, or reasonably clear injustice going beyond what is merely arguable. Particular caution applies to interlocutory decisions on practice and procedure. The Court expressed grave concern about the use of AI to generate hallucinated case citations in legal submissions, noting this would contravene Practice Note SC Gen 23. The case also illustrates that a party seeking to vacate a contested hearing before three judges of the Court of Appeal on medical grounds must provide medical evidence, not mere assertions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.