Rees Investments Ltd v Groves & Anor

Section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 does not extend to a charge securing an overdraft, or a similar liability, where payment cannot be deferred until a demand has been made. The Court of Appeal is bound by Habib Bank v Taylor. A second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. The court will not interfere merely because the underlying circumstances are sympathetic or because a lower court has properly exercised its discretion.

This was an application by Dr and Mrs Groves for permission to bring a second appeal, with an appeal to follow if permission were granted, against orders made in mortgage possession proceedings. Master Price had suspended an order for possession under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, as extended by section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973. Mr Justice Neuberger allowed Rees Investments’ appeal on jurisdictional grounds and dismissed the borrowers’ appeal against refusal to extend time.

The central issues were whether section 8 applied to the second charge and whether a further appeal satisfied the statutory second-appeal threshold.

1. Application dismissed. Permission for a second appeal was refused and the stay of execution was lifted to enable possession to be obtained at an early date.
2. The second charge was in standard form and secured liabilities to the bank on any account. Although the underlying advance was a specific loan rather than, in Mrs Groves’ understanding, an overdraft, the security was of the relevant broad form.
3. Following the binding decision in Habib Bank v Taylor [1982] 1 WLR 1218, section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 did not apply to a charge securing an overdraft or similar liability where there could be no deferment of payment until a demand made the money due. The letter of 22 September 1992 might have had legal force, but Mr Justice Neuberger had not based his decision on the contrary argument.
4. Under section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, a second appeal required an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and raised no such point.
5. The borrowers’ challenge to the refusal to extend time disclosed no error in the deputy master’s exercise of discretion. The alleged offer to pay the sum due had been before him and did not justify appellate intervention.

• Master Price: made an order for possession and payment, suspended on payment of arrears under the arrangement recorded in the letter of 22 September 1992.
• Mr Justice Hart: granted Rees Investments permission to appeal against the suspension of possession.
• Deputy Master Rhys: refused the borrowers’ application to extend the time for compliance.
• Mr Justice Neuberger: allowed Rees Investments’ appeal on the jurisdictional issue and dismissed the borrowers’ appeal against refusal to extend time.
• Court of Appeal: refused permission for a further appeal and lifted the stay of execution.