Hart v London Borough Of Brent

Leave to appeal is granted only where the proposed appeal discloses an arguable case with a prospect of success. Where no ground could succeed and the outcome is obvious, granting leave serves no useful purpose. Serious health problems, unsuitable accommodation and alleged rehousing assurances do not by themselves justify continued suspension of a possession warrant after prolonged rent arrears, repeated indulgences and no substantial payments. A landlord, including a local authority, is entitled to expect rent and may eventually refuse further indulgence. Once leave is refused, an application to stay execution of the warrant does not arise.

The applicant and his family occupied a flat owned by the respondent local authority. Rent arrears led to a possession order, initially suspended on payment of the current rent and small weekly sums towards the arrears. Further arrears accrued despite that indulgence.

District Judge Steel refused to suspend the warrant of possession. Judge Krikler dismissed the applicant’s appeal in the Willesden County Court. The applicant then urgently sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal and a stay of execution, relying on his child’s serious illness, the unsuitability of the flat, alleged rehousing assurances and an explanation for the non-payment. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable appeal.

Lord Justice Butler-Sloss delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Roch agreed. The application was dismissed. Leave to appeal and a stay of execution of the warrant were refused.

1. Leave to appeal should be granted only where the applicant establishes an arguable case. If there are no grounds on which the appeal might succeed, and the outcome is obvious, there is no proper purpose in incurring the time and expense of granting leave.
2. The applicant’s circumstances attracted sympathy, particularly the child’s sickle cell disease and the alleged unsuitability of the accommodation. They did not, however, excuse the prolonged failure to pay rent. The applicant had received two substantial opportunities to remain in the premises by paying the current rent and modest sums towards the arrears, but nothing substantial had been paid.
3. The court was entitled to take account of the very substantial arrears, the applicant’s income, his failure to make effective arrangements for payment while away from the property, and the improbability that his proposed payments could be maintained. A local authority landlord was entitled to receive rent and, after a prolonged period without effective payment, was entitled to refuse further indulgence.
4. Since no ground had any realistic prospect of success, there was no arguable appeal. In those circumstances, the application for a stay of the warrant did not arise.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused leave to appeal and refused a stay of execution of the warrant; application dismissed.
2. Willesden County Court: Judge Krikler dismissed the applicant’s appeal from District Judge Steel’s refusal to suspend the warrant.
3. District Judge: A possession order had previously been suspended on payment of the current rent and weekly contributions towards arrears. District Judge Steel later refused to suspend the warrant.