Croydon Peoples Housing Association v Pilgrim

On an application for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal may adjourn where the applicant identifies matters requiring investigation, even though the existing material does not yet show a real prospect of success. Relevant matters may include fresh medical evidence bearing on the reasonableness or immediacy of a possession order, alleged deficiencies in the original hearing, later developments, and complaints concerning a material witness. The adjournment is procedural and does not amount to permission to appeal. The respondent should receive notice and an opportunity to address the evidence and its relevance.

Croydon Peoples Housing Association obtained an order for possession against Mr Pilgrim in the Croydon County Court. His Honour Judge Coningsby QC made the order on 8 January 2001 after a two-day hearing concerning alleged nuisance by Mr Pilgrim towards neighbouring tenants and a housing association worker. The judge relied on ground 14 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 and concluded that immediate possession was reasonable.

Mr Pilgrim, appearing in person, applied for permission to appeal, an extension of time because his application was one day late, and permission to adduce further evidence. He relied on medical material, alleged mishandling of his case by his former solicitor, a complaint concerning a police witness, the absence of some of his witnesses, and the absence of further trouble since the possession order. The central question was whether these matters should be investigated before the Court of Appeal finally decided whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

Application adjourned. Lord Justice Mummery was not satisfied on the papers or on Mr Pilgrim’s account that the proposed appeal then had a real prospect of success. He nevertheless considered that the housing association should be represented and that several matters required further investigation before a final decision on permission.

1. The proposed fresh medical evidence could bear on whether possession was reasonable and, if possession was justified, whether an immediate order was reasonable. The court required further medical evidence about Mr Pilgrim’s present condition and the alleged stroke and loss of use of his arm.
2. The court also required information about the progress of the complaint made by Mr Pilgrim’s solicitors concerning WPC Madden, who had given evidence at the county court hearing.
3. Further information about Mr Pilgrim’s assertion that there had been no trouble with Miss Gibbs since the possession order could be relevant to the proposed appeal.
4. The complaints that the county court judge had failed to give proper weight to the evidence, had not properly addressed the racial difference between the parties, and had proceeded without witnesses whom Mr Pilgrim expected to attend were matters for consideration at the adjourned hearing. The Court of Appeal noted that the judge had given a detailed judgment and appeared to have been aware of the racial issue.
5. The hearing was to be re-fixed on notice to the housing association, which should be represented and invited to make submissions on the relevance of the additional material and on the absence of further problems. The adjournment did not grant permission to appeal. The court warned that permission might later be refused and that the housing association might seek costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The applications for permission to appeal, an extension of time and permission to adduce further evidence were adjourned on notice for further evidence and submissions. Croydon Peoples Housing Association v Pilgrim [2001] EWCA Civ 1302.
• Croydon County Court: His Honour Judge Coningsby QC made an order for possession on 8 January 2001, requiring Mr Pilgrim to leave the flat by 1600 hours on 23 January 2001.