Ocwen Ltd v Quinn

On a second appeal, the applicant must show an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Before deciding permission, the Court of Appeal may adjourn the application and stay execution of possession orders where the amount claimed appears capable of material error and further investigation could affect whether the debt can be redeemed. Relevant considerations include the creditor’s lack of urgency, the risk that further sums will be irrecoverable, and whether the applicant may obtain alternative finance. An adjournment does not determine permission or the underlying indebtedness.

Mrs Quinn applied for permission to bring a second appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Spittle on 8 June 2001. That order followed an appeal from District Judge Bailey, who had dismissed her application on 22 February 2001 to vary the terms for paying arrears secured by charges on her home. She also sought a stay of execution of possession orders.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the application should be determined immediately or adjourned to permit checking of the figures said to be required to redeem the borrowing and assessment of whether alternative finance might be available.

Disposition

The application for permission to appeal was adjourned. Execution of the possession orders was stayed pending the adjournment.

1. Second appeal. Ward LJ observed that this was a second appeal. Mrs Quinn therefore had to show an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court did not finally determine whether that threshold was met.
2. Basis for adjournment and stay. The court was concerned that borrowing of approximately £40,000 had increased to nearly £73,000 in less than five years. Ward LJ recognised that he might have misunderstood the calculations, but considered that the apparent discrepancy justified giving Mrs Quinn an opportunity to obtain fresh evidence and verify the sum required to redeem the mortgage. The absence of apparent urgency on the borrowers’ part and the likelihood that further sums might be irrecoverable also supported the stay.
3. Practical directions. Mrs Quinn was directed to seek assistance from the Citizens Advice Bureau and to contact the Office of Fair Trading, if possible, so that approximate calculations could be checked before the matter returned. She was also advised to contact the local authority’s homelessness section because she appeared unlikely to obtain replacement borrowing without employment.

The order was procedural and provisional. It did not decide the accuracy of the debt, the merits of the proposed appeal, or Mrs Quinn’s ultimate liability.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 November 2001, the court adjourned the application for permission to bring a second appeal and stayed execution of the possession orders pending the adjournment. The judgment is reported at [2001] EWCA Civ 1895.
2. Lower courts: District Judge Bailey dismissed Mrs Quinn’s application on 22 February 2001. His Honour Judge Spittle made an order on 8 June 2001 after hearing her appeal.