Archive for the 'Possession' Category

“I could be a lawyer with stratagems and ruses”*

Wasted costs orders are scary things. There is the censure by the Court, of course, but worst of all, the solicitors then have to pay and, no matter how much or how little, that rips shreds out of the very essence of their being.

Threats to pursue wasted costs tend to be waved around rather too often by some solicitors, perhaps overly convinced of their own rightness. Usually what is at issue is actually a valid point of dispute. Personally, I think these threats tend to backfire, at least if the recipient is reasonably sure that an application would fail. Nothing shrieks of a lack of strength in a position … Read the full post

Proportionality and stay of eviction

One of the questions posed as a result of Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8 [our report here] is what happens if a proportionality argument is raised after a possession order has been made, but before eviction.

Powell found that s.89 Housing Act 1980, which limits the time for a stay of possession order to a maximum of 6 weeks, was compatible with Article 8. So, once a possession order has been made, does the court have any discretion to revisit or extend a period of stay beyond 6 weeks?

Ngesa v Crawley BC [2011] EWCA Civ 1291 [Not on Bailii yet] addresses this issue, though perhaps … Read the full post

When is a warrant executed?

Royal Bank of Scotland v Bray Halifax County Court 25 November 2011

At what point in the course of an eviction and securing of a property is the warrant considered to be executed, so that no application for a stay can be made? This is a County Court case, but the Court’s decision is clear and supported.

Mrs Bray’s home was mortgaged to RBS. RBS had obtained a possession order and had obtained, then withdrawn 5 previous warrants. RBS got a further warrant. Before the eviction date Mrs B wrote to RBS offering to clear the arrears at lunchtime on 18 November 2011 as she had sold her car and … Read the full post

Full of Sound and Fury…

Signifying nothing*

(*And yes, I am aware that the preceding line is ‘A tale told by an idiot’.)

The much trumpeted Wandsworth riot related eviction has stalled even before possession proceedings were issued. According to a press release from Liberty, following a meeting with the tenant’s legal representatives (the tenant is represented by Liberty), LB Wandsworth agreed not to bring proceedings.

If you recall (and here is our very first take on the matter, written on the day of the press release and subsequent service of Notice Seeking Possession by Wandsworth), the son of the tenant was charged with riot related offences. The son has now been sentenced … Read the full post

Occupy LSX update

As you may well have seen in the news, the Corporation of London was granted a possession order and injunction against the tents and camp of Occupy LSX in the churchyard area outside St Paul’s Cathedral by the High Court on Wednesday 18 January. The judgment is on the Judiciary website here.

We’ll have a note on the judgment shortly, but the main finding was that, given the Corporation’s right to possession, the interference with the protestors’ Article 10 and 11 rights was justified and proportionate in view of the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including public passers-by, St Paul’s Cathedral, church-goers and businesses in … Read the full post

Substantial Dispute

Benesco Charity Ltd v Kanj & Anor [2011] EWHC 3415 (Ch)

CPR55.8 has been the the subject of a surprising amount of appellate interest recently. For those of you not nodding sagely at this point CPR55.8 deals with the Courts obligations at a summary possession hearing. Put simply the Court has two choices at such a hearing, set out in CPR55.8(1). They can either decide the claim by making a possession order or give case management directions. CPR55.8(2) states that “where the claim is genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial” those directions must either include an allocation to track or enable that allocation to occur.

In this … Read the full post

Proportionality, Art. 8 and Monk

Chesterfield BC v Bailey is a highly instructive case heard at first instance by Recorder Tilbury in the Derby County Court. We thank Philip Barber of Zenith Chambers for providing us with a transcript of the judgment. The Defence was run by Chesterfield Law Centre. [Now on Bailii Read the full post



row of sheds footer image
39 pages