Lessors claimed for arrears of rent, forfeiture of the lease and possession of the premises. The lessee admitted the arrears, advanced no defence and did not seek an adjournment. The judge, of his own motion, adjourned the hearing because the lessee, although without means at the time, had an expectation of receiving certain monies under a trust of an uncertain amount at an uncertain date. The hearing was resumed at the adjourned date, and the judge adjourned it for a second time. The lessors applied for an order of mandamus requiring the judge to hear and determine the claim.
Held: The judge had been entitled to adjourn the action under the section, on the first occasion, but not on the second. The word ‘shall’ required the judge to proceed forthwith to judgment for a plaintiff who had without doubt established his claim to relief under the section. Nevertheless, the judge was entitled to adjourn the claim provided that he was acting ‘judicially’. On the facts of that case, in adjourning the claim on the first occasion, the judge was acting judicially: ‘The view that I have formed is that, paying particular regard to section 191 of the County Courts Act 1959, the judge cannot be criticised for taking it into his own hands on the first occasion to adjourn the matter on the basis that he was not then in a position to be able to decide with any degree of accuracy the time which he would give to the lessee to fulfil the term relating to the rent, having regard to the additional factor that he could not impose a term of less than 28 days anyway’ and ‘the allowance of time is a discretionary matter’, although this did not diminish the force of the use of the word ‘shall’ in the section. For this reason: ‘I do not believe that a judge can inevitably be criticised for not proceeding to judgment forthwith, for example, on the first occasion when the matter comes before him if something of materiality remains uncertain as a matter of evidence. To adjourn a case on virtually the same ground again is, however, I think impermissible. A judge, faced with the problems which confronted the judge here, should act strictly in accordance with the law as laid down in section 191 and give the plaintiff the relief which he seeks.’
Judges:
Watkins J
Citations:
(1976) 33 P and CR 423
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.221437
