[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 >> London Borough Of Southwark v Kaikai [2002] EWCA Civ 432 (19 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/432.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 432

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Tuesday, 19th March 2002

Tuesday, 19th March 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is an application for permission to appeal. The application is made by Mr Kaikai in person. The decision which he wishes to appeal is that of His Honour Judge Cox in the Lambeth County Court on 7th January 2002, dismissing his appeal from the order of the District Judge at the end of August 2001, dismissing his application for a stay of execution, which he was subsequently granted pending the appeal to His Honour Judge Cox. As I have explained to Mr Kaikai, this is a second appeal, his appeal to His Honour Judge Cox against the order of the District Judge having been unsuccessful. Second appeals are governed by special provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 52.13, which provides that:

"(1)Permission is required from the Court of Appeal for any appeal to that court from a decision of a county court ... which was itself made on appeal.

(2)The Court of Appeal will not give permission unless it considers that-

(a) the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice; or

(b)there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it."

2. The background to Mr Kaikai's application is that since the end of August 1996 he has been a secure tenant of the London Borough of Southwark in premises at 14 Moffat House, Redcar Street, Comber Estate, SE5. On 15th November 1996 he was served with notice by the Housing Department of the Council of their intention to apply for an order requiring him to give up possession on the ground that rent lawfully due from him had not been paid. The action was taken on the basis that there were claimed arrears of rent and other charges amounting to £274.81. The summons for possession was issued on 25th April 1997. On 18th June 1997 an order for possession was made for 16th July 1997. There was, however, provision in the order as to payment of unpaid rent in respect of the property, and a direction that he should pay a total amount of £1,601.51 by instalments of £8.29, in addition to the current rent of £46.71, the first payment to be made on or before 25th June, and that when the total amount mentioned was paid, the Council would not take any steps to evict him as a result of that order. On 22nd April 1998 a further order was made suspending the warrant for possession as long as Mr Kaikai paid the current rent of £12.49 per week off the arrears of £1,849.15. On 18th June 1999 another order was made by the District Judge suspending the warrant, provided that Mr Kaikai paid £300 per month (to include current rent), the first payment to be made on or before 18th July 1999. The District Judge had on 31st August 2001 dismissed an application by Mr Kaikai for a stay of execution, though, as I have mentioned, he did on 3rd September stay the warrant pending the outcome of Mr Kaikai's appeal from his order.
3. Mr Kaikai has explained some of his problems. I have also read the grounds of his appeal in his notice of application, in which he complains that His Honour Judge Cox had misdirected himself in law and was heavily biased towards the Council. He said that he was not given sufficient time to explain anything, and that the judge's behaviour was contrary to a fair hearing and a breach of his natural rights. There was no "audi alteram partem". He says:

"Had the judge listen to me to explain [the position] we would have had a different outcome. I am not inviting his Lordship as to the consequences of the outcome of the eviction."

4. I have considered those grounds and the other matters mentioned by Mr Kaikai. I am afraid that my conclusion is that Mr Kaikai does not bring this second-tier appeal within CPR 52.13. Although the appeal raises points which are undoubtedly of importance to Mr Kaikai in respect of his continued occupation of his premises, it cannot possibly be said that they raise an important point of principle or practice or that there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case.
5. I have mentioned to Mr Kaikai that, if he has continuing problems with the payment of the arrears and he faces imminent eviction -he told me the date which has been fixed is 10th April - he should, as soon as possible, go to the Housing Department of the London Borough of Southwark and explain his position to them to see if some agreement cannot be reached with them about his possession of the premises and the payment off of the arrears of rent. If he is unable to reach any agreement with the Council, then it would be open to Mr Kaikai to make a further application to the Lambeth County Court. I am unable to say, and it would not be appropriate for me to say, what would be the likely outcome of any such application. It would depend on the nature of the application made, the evidence in support of it and the basis on which it was made.
6. All I decide at this hearing is that this application for permission has no real prospect of success, because it does not come within CPR Part 52.13.
Order: Application refused.