Appellants attempting to evict respondent from mobile homes site — Appellants failing to serve correct notice — Respondent mistakenly admitting receipt of notice in pleadings — Whether court bound by erroneous admission in pleadings — Appeal allowed
The appellants owned a mobile home site, upon which the respondent occupied a mobile home. The appellants sought a declaration that the respondent occupied the pitch by way of a contractual licence, which had terminated, and claimed possession of the pitch on the ground, inter alia, that the respondent had breached the licence agreement. Under para 4(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the appellants were able to terminate such an agreement only if they had served a notice to remedy the breach, and the respondent had failed to comply. Although it was common ground that the appellants had failed to serve such a notice, the respondent had erroneously indicated in his pleaded defence that such a notice had been received.
At first instance, the recorder found that the respondent’s admission did not absolve the appellants from their duty to satisfy para 4(a) and gave summary judgment for the respondent. The appellants appealed.
The issue for the court was whether it was bound by the admission in the defence. The appellants maintained that where a matter had been admitted on the pleadings, no evidence in relation to it would be admissible. They claimed that unless the pleading were amended so as to withdraw the admission, the court would be bound to give judgment in accordance with that admission. The respondent argued that the 1983 Act placed an overriding requirement on the court to be satisfied that Schedule 1 had been complied with, and that in cases where a judge was aware that an admitted fact was untrue, he was bound to find that the requirement had not been complied with.
Held: The appeal was allowed
Under the 1983 Act, the occupier of a mobile home was protected by terms implied into his licence agreement, and under any application to remove such an occupier the court had to be satisfied that the terms implied into the licence by Schedule 1 had been satisfied. However, the respondent’s argument was incorrect. In McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] 3 All ER 775, the court held that pleadings were critical to identify the issues and extent of the dispute between the parties. Although a departure from the pleadings may have caused no prejudice to the other party, if it had been likely to cause prejudice the interests of justice dictated that the prejudiced party could insist that the pleading be properly amended.
At first instance, the recorder had erred in holding that, as a matter of law, he was bound to find that the notice required by Schedule 1 had not been served. Until the defence had been amended, that issue could not arise. The recorder should have required the respondent to apply for permission to amend his pleading before making a decision on the basis of that application. It was not to be assumed that the recorder would have allowed the application. The appropriate course was to set aside the summary judgment and to allow the appeal.
Leslie Blohm (instructed by Tozers, of Exeter) appeared for the appellants; Andrew Granville Stafford (instructed by Morton Fisher, of Kidderminster) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
