Appeal struck out for non-compliance with rules and directions

Failure to comply with the rules and court orders or to seek an extension of time for compliance are likely to result in claims being struck out. The court has struck out an appeal against a possession order in Selfridge Estate Ltd v Winchester Property Ltd [2023] EWHC 1945 (KB). The case concerned commercial property at Edgeware Road, London W2, owned by Winchester. It was let to Selfridge on a three-year term from 28 September 2020 to 28 September 2023. Winchester had an option to terminate the lease on 29 September 2021 or 29 September 2022 on three months’ written notice. Winchester argued that it gave Selfridge notice of termination on 29 September 2021 by special delivery post and by leaving a copy at the premises in accordance with the lease. Selfridge denied that the notice had been served. Winchester obtained an order for possession, forthwith, from the Central London County Court and the proceedings were transferred to the High Court for enforcement. A writ of possession was enforced on 9 May 2023 when Selfridge was evicted from the property. Selfridge sought permission to appeal by application to the county court on 9 May 2023. On 11 May 2023 a High Court judge transferred it to the High Court and ordered Selfridge to file an appeal bundle with the court by 12 June 2023. The bundle was to include, among other things, a transcript of the county court hearing, grounds of appeal and any skeleton argument and further evidence relied upon. Selfridge was permitted to seek an extension of time for compliance, prior to 12 June 2023, by application supported by evidence explaining the steps already taken and the reasons that an extension was required. The appeal hearing was set for 26 July 2023. Selfridge failed to comply with the order. It sent an unsigned witness statement to Winchester on 12 June 2023 which contained no details of its appeal. On 20 July 2023 it requested an adjournment of the hearing because the director and his partner would be away. Winchester refused. No application to adjourn the hearing was made and Selfridge did not attend. The court decided there was no good reason to adjourn the hearing and struck out the appeal. The background to the order of 15 May 2023 was Selfridge’s failure to comply with the rules. It had failed to comply with that order, made no application to extend the deadline and provided no explanation for its non-compliance. In its current state the appeal was bound to fail. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator