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 the product of their own wrongdoing. There were further irregularities in the application for the warrant. Finding the council’s conduct oppressive, the court distinguished Aldwinckle on the footing that whereas in that case it was far from clear that a s.85(2) application would have succeeded, in Saint the likelihood of a suspension being ordered was conceded. ‘The categories of oppression are not closed and the court must have the power to intervene in the interests of justice in an appropriate case to correct the position where its procedures have been used unfairly to the oppression of a party.’
Judges:
Peter Gibson LJ
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Civ 1407, [1998] 31 HLR 620
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – 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. . .
Distinguished – 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 by:
Cited – Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another CA 1-Nov-2000
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144886
