The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the warrant was in breach of his right to a fair trial.
Held: The hearing at which the possession order had been granted satisfied the applicant’s right to a fair trial. The issue of the warrant merely gave effect to the order, and did not alter the tenant’s legal status, nor make any decision about his rights. Proportionality had been considered at the first hearing. The choice of the County Court rather than the High Court was made without reference to any characteristic of the applicant, and could not be said to be discriminatory.
The issue of a warrant was an administrative and not a judicial process.
Kennedy LJ: ‘the routine enforcement of court orders . . should not normally entail a separate hearing’. There is a need for ‘court administration [to be] flexible and efficient’.
Rix LJ: ‘An efficient procedure for routine execution of the court’s orders is in the public interest’.
Judges:
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ
Citations:
Times 06-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1138, [2002] 1 WLR 1537
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1985 85, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Dec-2001
The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new . .
Cited – Bristol City Council v Hassan and Glastonbury CA 23-May-2006
The council had obtained possession orders for two properties from secure tenants, but the orders were suspended for so long as rent arrears were being discharged. The judges had understood that a date must appear on the possession order.
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers) CA 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Housing, Litigation Practice
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147621
