A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She was assisted in this misapprehension neither by the Court nor by the landlord. Their behaviour could not properly be described as oppressive. It was not clear, in this context, what was meant by ‘oppressive’. The applicant had not in this case been misled. Once it is concluded that there is no oppression, there is no inherent power in the court to set aside the eviction. The Rules did not require notice to be given of an intention to aply for a warrant for possession. Though a failure to give notice might be oppressive conduct, it was not in this case.
Lord Justice Simon Brown And Lord Justice Rix
Times 02-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 271, [2001] 23 EGLR 14, [2001] 41 EG 186, [2001] 2 All ER 901
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden v Akanni CA 31-Jan-1997
The context in which the court is willing in a rare, but appropriate, case to intervene to nullify the execution of a warrant for possession goes back to the principles set out in McHenry v Lewis. . .
Cited – McHenry v Lewis 1888
Bowen LJ said: ‘I would much rather rest on the general principle that the Court can and will interfere whenever there is a vexation and oppression to prevent the administration of justice being perverted for an unjust end. I would rather do that . .
Cited – Leicester City Council v Aldwinckle CA 1991
A tenant was evicted while absent from the premises for some months through illness and who, following her breach of the suspended possession order, received no notice whatever either of the council’s application for a warrant, or of the issue of . .
Cited – Beale v MacGregor 1886
The court has an inherent power to prevent the abuse of proceedings and to avoid oppression. . .
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill CA 25-Apr-1994
A possession warrant issued under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house may not be set aside after its execution, unless the possession order itself was set aside for example as having been obtained by fraud. If a possession order has been made, . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes CA 8-May-2000
The tenant had been misled both by the respondent Council and by the court.
Held: (Waller LJ) ‘Mr Hughes has made out a case that he received misleading advice from the court. He has also made out a case that he was misled as to the procedures . .
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Lemeh CA 3-Apr-2000
The court noted that there was no reported case in which it had actually been decided ‘that oppression can include oppression caused by misleading information given by the court office’, and continued: ‘In principle, I am unable to see why . .
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Saint CA 21-Aug-1998
The council requested a warrant for possession be issued on the basis of certified arrears of pounds 333 when they were in breach of their statutory duty to assist the tenant in his claim for housing benefit and save for pounds 28, were relying on . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Sarfo CA 19-Jul-1999
The tenant sought to set aside a warrant for possession after it had been executed.
Held: The tenant would have succeeded in setting aside the execution of the possession warrant but for her delay in applying to the court and the fact that by . .
Cited – Peachey Property Corporation Limited v Robinson 1967
The High Court and County Court rules differ in their ability to give a default judgment for possession of a residential property as against a tenant. . .
Cited – Fleet Mortgage and Investment Company Limited v Lower Maisonette 1972
Natural justice required the High Court Rules to be construed as requiring the tenant to be given notice of the landlord’s application for leave to issue a writ of execution following an alleged breach of a conditional possession order. . .
Cited – Regina v Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court ex parte Villerwest Limited 1976
Lord Denning said that every Court has inherent power to control its own procedure, even though there is nothing in the rules about it, and ‘Suppose a man is on his way to the court in time with the money in his pocket. Then he is run down in an . .
Cited – Rolph v Zolan CA 7-May-1993
Postal service at the last known address within the jurisdiction is valid even though the defendant was known to be abroad. The summons was then posted on to him abroad and was properly served under County Court Rules 1981. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ellis v Circle 33 Housing Trust Ltd CA 23-Sep-2005
The housing association obtained a possession order for rent arrears. The tenant had not attended, and had taken no steps in the matter. The association had corresponded with the housing benefit department of the local authority which had said that . .
Cited – Pritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.147304