[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Bromford Corinthia Housing Association v Mohammed & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 90 (29 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/90.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 90

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WOLVERHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Fletcher)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday 29th January, 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: This is a renewed application by Mr and Mrs Mohammed, the defendants in the proceedings, for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Fletcher sitting in the Wolverhampton County Court on 5 October 2000 whereby he refused Mr and Mrs Mohammed permission to appeal against the refusal of District Judge Gailey on 25 September 2000 to suspend a warrant for possession. I refused the application on the papers on 11 December 2000.
2. The background to the matter is briefly as follows. The claimant in the action is Bromford Corinthia Association ("the Association"). On 24 November 1998 the Association let to Mr and Mrs Mohammed on an assured tenancy residential premises at 8 Grosvenor Close, Bushbury, Wolverhampton. The rent payable under the tenancy fell into arrear, and on 14 February 2000 the Association obtained an order for possession in 28 days. Following the expiry of that period, the Association issued a warrant for possession, which was due to be executed on 23 May 2000. However, on the preceding day, 22 May 2000, Mr and Mrs Mohammed applied to suspend the warrant. Mr Mohammed told the court that the premises had been burgled three times, that as a result he had been left in a difficult financial position, and that the insurance company had not as yet paid out on his claims. He also prayed in aid the fact that his entitlement to housing benefit had been cancelled. The cancellation of housing benefit appears to have resulted from a report by the Association to the Housing Benefit Agency to the effect that there were few signs of occupation of the premises. It appears that Mr Mohammed appealed against the cancellation of housing benefit; that that appeal was dismissed; and that Mr Mohammed has sought a review of the dismissal of the appeal. It further appears that the position in relation to housing benefit remains unresolved, and it is not clear to me when any review of the dismissal of Mr Mohammed's appeal will take place.
3. The warrant for possession was suspended, and subsequent applications for suspension were also made. On 25 September 2000 Mr and Mrs Mohammed applied to the District Judge for a further suspension of the warrant for possession. The District Judge refused that application and it would appear he also refused permission to appeal. At all events, Mr and Mrs Mohammed then sought permission to appeal from the County Court judge, His Honour Judge Fletcher. As I have already indicated, Judge Fletcher refused such permission. In so doing, he gave a substantial judgment setting out the background to the matter. He concluded, plainly rightly in my judgment, that it was up to Mr and Mrs Mohammed to resolve the position in relation to housing benefit. That was not a concern of the Association as landlord of the premises. The judge further observed that he did not see any realistic prospect of the rent arrears being paid off. After referring to Rule 52.3(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judge concluded his judgment as follows:

"I have to say on all that I have heard I cannot take the view that the proposed appeal and the suspension of the warrant is going to result in any amelioration of the situation. It seems to me that there is no real prospect of repayment of the arrears. They are going to continue to rise and in those circumstances I do not think it is a case where I ought to allow this appeal, and the [appeal against the] refusal of permission to apply to suspend the warrant is dismissed, and permission to appeal is refused."

4. Mr Mohammed has appeared in person this morning and has said that he is now in a much better financial position and that he is able to make an immediate payment on account of the arrears, to be followed with a further substantial payment in four weeks time; the effect of which if made, he says, will be substantially to reduce the arrears. In the meantime he tells me the rent will continue to be paid.
5. These are matters which Mr Mohammed should of course bring to the notice of the Association at the earliest possible opportunity. They do not however, in my judgment, go anywhere to justifying the grant of permission to appeal. In my judgment, Judge Fletcher's refusal to grant permission was entirely justified since there were no arguable grounds to support the proposed appeal. Moreover, in so far as Mr Mohammed seeks indirectly to appeal the possession order itself, I can see no arguable basis for such an appeal.
6. Accordingly, the application today must be refused. Mr Mohammed should take immediate steps to inform the Association of his improved financial position and it will be for the Association, in the light of such information as he gives, to consider its next step in the matter.
7. For my purposes, however, I can see no basis on which this application can succeed. I accordingly dismiss it.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused. (Order not part of approved judgment)