It appears that the Court of Appeal is to hear a challenge to Practice Direction 51Z on 30 April 2020.
The case is called Arkin v Marshall.
a) this involves two claims for possession on residential mortgages, apparently by a receiver
b) the challenge is to:
(i) whether the 3-month stay of possession proceedings in PD 51Z is unlawful/ultra vires
(ii) whether the stay applies to the requirement to comply with case management directions in all cases and
(iii) whether the stay should be lifted in individual cases.
Update – I now have a copy of the first instance decision, which is here. The issue was whether the parties must comply with directions during the PD 51Z stay period. It is a Circuit Judge decision which has apparently been given leapfrog permission to go to the Court of Appeal.
Also, the Housing Law Practitioners Association are considering an application to intervene and have issued an urgent call for evidence from housing lawyers. Details in the link.
This could be a very important case for the next few months….
Don’t know whether you have seen the Tanfield Chambers website which gives a little more info including that the decision appealed against is Arkin (As Fixed Charge Receiver) v Marshall [F00HF362 & F00HF363] (HHJ Parfitt 15/4/20 unreported).
I’ve got the first instance decision and added it to the post.
Have you seen the article by Womble Bond Dickinson about a way round PD51Z?
https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/courts-power-shorten-or-dis-apply-stay-possession-claims-pd51z
Also in Lexology
That is the issue in this appeal. HHJ Parfitt, relying on Court of Appeal authority, held that the approach adopted by HHJ Freeman in that Womble Bond Dickinson is impermissible. The Court of Appeal will give us the answer, hopefully on 30 April.
Looks to me that in one the argument was that the stay could be lifted and the other that it could be varied. Hopefully the Court of Appeal decision will clearly deal with both
The appeal failed. Post to follow. PD51Z stays as is.