Michael expressly disclaimed PTA. Cohen's email proves.
Cohen's N460 refuses permission to appeal. Michael stated at the hearing he was NOT applying for PTA. Cohen imposed a TWM on an application that was never made. The N460 also invented an application to refuse. Wasif/Grace standard violated on multi-limb applications.
Wasif v SRA [2023] EWCA Civ 1155; Grace v Black Horse Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1413
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Court can deem submissions as an application for PTA.
Michael EXPRESSLY stated at the hearing he was NOT applying for PTA. He was requesting Flannery reasons and CPR 40.12 corrections. Cohen's own email (25 Aug): 'Now that you have decided you wish to seek permission to appeal'. But Michael had NOT decided this. Court cannot deem an application the party expressly disclaimed.
The TWM was certified on the substantive merits of the appeal, not the procedural question.
Wasif v SRA: TWM cannot apply to multi-limb applications with arguable elements. Grace v Black Horse: TWM certification inappropriate where any limb is arguably meritorious. Hallam Estates: TWM reserved for cases 'truly without merit'. MHCM void argument is supported by statute and UKSC authority. It cannot be 'totally without merit'.
N460 completed by court's own initiative. Michael explicitly stated at hearing he was NOT applying for PTA.
Fallback: Even if PTA was 'deemed' made, the TWM on administrative housekeeping limbs (transcripts, consolidation) still violates Wasif/Grace.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 August 2025 | Recorder Cohen KC | N460 Permission Refusal / TWM on PTA | VOID |