The Court of Appeal has ruled that a county court was entitled to revoke the postponement of a possession order even though the tenant had complied with the terms of the order.
The case concerned an order for possession issued by Manchester City Council against Joleen Finn, for arrears of rent in respect of her council accommodation. The order was postponed in February 2000 on the condition that Finn repaid the arrears by instalments.
However, the council subsequently received complaints from neighbours and sought to revoke the postponement of the order on the ground that the premises had been a cause of nuisance.
The court was required to determine whether it was open to the county court to revoke or vary an order for suspended possession where the tenant was complying with the terms of the order and the tenancy was not at an end.
The county court judge held that the court did have jurisdiction to make the order sought by the landlord.
Challenging that decision in the Court of Appeal, Jan Luba QC, counsel for the tenant, argued that there was “no authority for the proposition that a landlord is allowed to use such a summary process to obtain possession and evict the tenant rather than commence fresh proceedings for possession or termination of secure tenancy”.
However, dismissing the appeal, Arden LJ said that it would lead to absurd consequences if fresh proceedings were needed, as it would lead to the likelihood of two concurrent orders for possession being in force.
She added that there was no reason why new grounds for possession could not be brought in the existing proceedings which the court always had power to allow in.
Manchester City Council v Finn Court of Appeal (Ward and Arden LJJ) 19 December 2002.
Jan Luba QC and James Stark (instructed by Platt Halpern, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning (instructed by the solicitor to Manchester City Council) appeared for the respondent.
PLS News 24/12/02
