Harris v Harris

An appellate court should not interfere with an interim holding order once the proceedings have been compromised and the order has become of purely historic interest. A challenge should instead be directed to any final judgment following a trial. In any event, an interim judge may infer an implied agreement about shared occupation from the written evidence and the parties’ course of conduct, particularly where the opposing statement contains no clear or categorical denial. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

Christine Harris sought permission to appeal, with an extension of time, against an order made in the Romford County Court in proceedings brought by her brother, Brian Harris. Brian had purchased Christine’s council house at a discount and asserted that the arrangement was intended to provide them with a shared home. Christine maintained that she was to remain sole owner during her lifetime.

A without-notice order was made on 22 August 2001. On 19 September the county court continued a restricted holding order pending an oral evidence hearing fixed for 2 November. The parties compromised at that hearing, so no final contested judgment was delivered. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should entertain an appeal against the interim order after the compromise.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Thorpe refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. The order of 19 September was expressly a holding order pending a further hearing at which oral evidence was to be heard. The parties subsequently compromised the dispute on 2 November. Although the order as drawn did not precisely record the agreement or state that it had been made by consent, the earlier order had become of purely historic interest. The Court of Appeal therefore had no business interfering with it.
3. If a trial had occurred and the county court judge had delivered a final judgment after hearing oral evidence, a fresh application for permission to appeal could have been made against that judgment. That situation did not arise because the proceedings were compromised.
4. In any event, on the written evidence before the county court judge, the conclusion that there was an implied intention to provide a shared home was plainly justified. Brian’s statement asserted the agreement. Christine’s statement explained her understanding of ownership but did not clearly or categorically deny the shared-home assertion. The conclusion was therefore at least manifestly open to the judge on the evidence.
5. The application was consequently hopeless. The operative order was: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 30 November 2001, Lord Justice Thorpe refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against the interim county court order. [2001] EWCA Civ 1967.
• Romford County Court: A without-notice order made on 22 August 2001 was continued in restricted form on 19 September as a holding order pending an oral evidence hearing. The parties compromised the dispute at the hearing fixed for 2 November, and no final contested judgment was delivered.