Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd

Where relief from forfeiture has been granted but an application for permission to appeal remains pending, execution may be stayed where the proposed appeal could materially prejudice persons affected by the order.

The court may allow costs assessment to proceed while staying enforcement of the substantive relief. It may give liberty to apply for the stay to be lifted or for further directions when the appellate position becomes clear.

Persons with rights under a lease to approve an assignee do not thereby acquire a general interest in, or entitlement to control, the conduct of a sale.

The judgment concerned the implementation of earlier Court of Appeal decisions granting Mrs Bland, as equitable chargee, relief from forfeiture of a lease. The respondents had taken a new lease shortly after the forfeiture.

The parties could not agree the consequential order. The court had to decide whether enforcement should be stayed pending Ingram's Estates Ltd’s petition for permission to appeal to the House of Lords, and whether the respondents should have liberty to apply concerning any subsequent sale.

1. Stay pending permission to appeal. The court granted a stay of execution of the order granting relief. If relief were implemented and the property sold before the appellate position was known, the respondents could suffer serious prejudice if the House of Lords later set aside the order. It was at least very likely that they would be joined to any appeal and affected by its outcome.
2. Costs assessment. The stay did not extend to assessment of Mrs Bland’s costs. That assessment was to proceed diligently.
3. Future directions. Mrs Bland was given liberty to apply to lift the stay and seek further directions if permission to appeal was refused. General liberty to apply was also appropriate for unforeseen contingencies. If permission were refused but costs assessment caused substantial further delay, payment into court could be considered as an expedited method of implementing the relief.
4. Conduct of sale. The respondents were not given liberty to apply concerning the conduct of the sale. Their contractual rights under the lease to be consulted about the identity of a purchaser, and to consent to an assignment subject to consent not being unreasonably withheld, remained unaffected. Those rights did not justify giving them a wider opportunity to interfere with the sale. Liberty to apply was confined to the Beers and their respective trustees in bankruptcy.

The judgment arose from earlier Court of Appeal judgments dated 21 December 2000, reported at [2001] 2 WLR 1638, and 11 July 2001, concerning relief from forfeiture. The present judgment settled the consequential order and stayed enforcement pending the decision on a petition for permission to appeal to the House of Lords.