Chesters Accomodation Agency v Abebrese

In possession proceedings, the proper claimant is the person in whom the immediate reversion is vested. A managing agent acting for the landlord is not the proper plaintiff. An appellate court may permit substitution of the landlord, but where the landlord has not appeared or consented, it should set aside the possession order and give the landlord liberty to apply for substitution and a fresh order.

A managing agent brought possession proceedings against a tenant under a shorthold tenancy, relying on rent arrears and an expired notice to quit. The Ilford County Court ordered possession and awarded mesne profits. On appeal, the tenant argued that the managing agent lacked locus standi because the landlord, Dr Hossain, held the immediate reversion. The central issues were whether the proceedings had been properly brought and what procedural order should follow.

Lord Justice Millett delivered the leading judgment, with Lord Justice Staughton agreeing. The appeal was allowed and the county court’s possession and mesne profits order was set aside.

1. The proper plaintiff in an action for possession is the person in whom the immediate reversion is vested. The managing agent, although authorised to serve notice as agent for the landlord, was not the proper claimant.
2. The point had not been raised before the county court, so the judge had not decided that a managing agent had standing to bring possession proceedings. The tenant’s lack of prejudice or deception did not cure the procedural defect.
3. The Court of Appeal had the same powers as the county court and could order substitution of Dr Hossain. However, Dr Hossain had not appeared, and there was no evidence that he was willing to take over the proceedings. The court therefore declined to make the substitution itself.
4. The appropriate course was to allow Dr Hossain liberty to apply to the Ilford County Court for substitution as plaintiff. The county court would then decide whether substitution was appropriate and whether to make a fresh possession order in his favour.

The formal order was: appeal allowed; legal aid taxation; liberty to apply in the county court to substitute the landlord as plaintiff.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal and set aside the order, giving liberty to apply for substitution of the landlord.
• Ilford County Court, on 13 August 1996, ordered possession of the property and payment of £20 per day by way of mesne profits.