Rappaport & Anor v Arond Finance Ltd

An order for possession does not, without more, determine an associated claim for rent arrears or establish that a pending appeal has been dismissed. Where possession is effectively uncontested, the court may grant possession while leaving the money claim and counterclaim for later determination. In reviewing a refusal to award costs, the appellant must show that the decision was plainly wrong. The judge may choose among legitimate alternatives, including deferring costs, limiting them to possession issues, or making no order. In a procedurally confused case, the absence of reasons does not require an inference that unresolved issues were decided.

The claimants appealed from orders made in the Willesden County Court on 14 March and 30 March 2000. The first order granted possession of residential premises but made no order as to costs. The second refused to revisit that order following an application concerning rent arrears, payment out of money held in court, and the defendant’s pending appeal against an unless order.

The underlying proceedings included claims for possession and arrears, a defence and counterclaim based on alleged breaches of repairing and insurance obligations, and disputes concerning set-off. The central questions were whether the possession order necessarily determined the money claim or dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and whether the refusal to award costs was plainly wrong.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Mr Justice Wall, with which Lord Justice Henry agreed, dismissed the appeal.

1. Effect of the possession order. The claimants had not shown that the possession order necessarily involved judgment in their favour on the money claim or dismissal of the defendant’s appeal against the order of Deputy District Judge Colquhoun. The available evidence pointed the other way. The possession claim was not resisted, whereas the rent dispute and the merits of the counterclaim remained unresolved. It was therefore permissible to make an uncontested possession order and leave the financial and counterclaim issues for determination on another occasion.
2. Costs. Although costs normally follow the event and a judge departing from that approach should ordinarily give reasons, the judge had a legitimate range of options. He could have deferred costs, limited them to the possession issue, or made no order. In the absence of a transcript, the circumstances did not establish that the refusal to award costs exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement was possible. The appellants therefore failed to show that the decision was plainly wrong.
3. Case management. The procedural history demonstrated the need for speedy and effective case management under the Civil Procedure Rules, so that the outstanding issues could be identified and resolved economically.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed and paid in any event.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal against the orders of the Willesden County Court and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs.
• Willesden County Court granted possession on 14 March 2000 with no order as to costs, and on 30 March 2000 refused to revisit the order or make the further orders sought.