Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another: CA 25 Nov 2008

The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court.

Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Justice Jacob and Sir William Aldous
[2008] EWCA Civ 1501, Times 12-Jan-2009, [2008] 48 EG 100, [2009] L and TR 19, [2009] 4 All ER 71, [2009] 1 EGLR 35, [2009] 1 WLR 2192, [2009] 10 EG 112, [2009] CP Rep 17
Housing Act 1980 89
England and Wales
not preferredBain and Co v Church Commissioners for England ChD 1989
Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling . .
AppliedHackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd QBD 14-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with . .
CitedBoyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.279977