Barnes v Woolwich Plc & Ors

An application to reinstate refused applications for permission to appeal does not ordinarily justify a stay of execution where no proper basis for reinstatement is shown. A rule providing for a stay pending a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice applies only where a current reference has been made. It cannot be invoked to create or require a reference on a question outside that court’s jurisdiction. A further short stay may be refused where repeated unsuccessful applications have delayed enforcement of a possession order. A transcript at public expense requires a proper basis.

The applicant sought urgent stays of execution of a possession order obtained by Woolwich Plc concerning property at Hill Top, Henham in Essex. He relied principally on an application to reinstate two applications for permission to appeal, previously dismissed by Jonathan Parker LJ, and on what he described as an application under Ord 114A of the Rules of the Supreme Court. He also sought a 24-hour stay to remove his possessions and a transcript at public expense.

The applications arose from bankruptcy proceedings and earlier orders made by Blackburne J and Hart J. The central issues were whether there was a basis for reinstatement or a stay, whether the preliminary-ruling provision applied, and whether any further postponement of execution was justified.

1. Applications dismissed. Lord Justice Chadwick refused to reinstate the two applications for permission to appeal dismissed by Jonathan Parker LJ. Having considered the judgments below and the judgment refusing permission, he found no basis for reinstatement. The stay sought pending reinstatement was therefore refused.
2. In any event, the judgments of Blackburne J and Hart J had no bearing on whether the warrant for possession should then be executed. The possession order had been operative at least since the judgment of His Honour Judge O’Brien on 2 February 2001.
3. The applicant’s reliance on Ord 114A, apparently referring to SC 114.4 in the Schedules to the Civil Procedure Rules, failed. The provision concerns domestic proceedings in which a reference requesting a preliminary ruling has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. No such reference was pending.
4. The proposed question concerning the presumption of innocence was unsuitable for reference because domestic law on the point was settled and no relevant Treaty of Rome article had been identified. A possible remark by Laws J about going to Europe could not establish the operation of the preliminary-ruling rule and was likely to concern the separate procedure before the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
5. No further 24-hour stay was justified. The applicant had chosen to make repeated unsuccessful applications rather than arrange alternative accommodation and removal of his possessions. His request for a transcript at public expense and his application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords were also refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Barnes v Woolwich Plc & Ors, [2001] EWCA Civ 1470: applications to reinstate earlier permission applications and to stay execution were dismissed. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
• The applications for permission to appeal had previously been dismissed by Jonathan Parker LJ on 5 July 2001. The underlying orders were made by Blackburne J on 8 June 2000 and Hart J on 23 June 2000 in bankruptcy proceedings.