Sheffield City Council v Hopkins

Permission to bring a second appeal should be granted where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success and raises an important point of principle or practice, or where there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. A statutory-construction issue concerning the scope of the court’s discretion under Housing Act 1985, section 85, was properly arguable. The existence of conflicting county-court practice and the wider significance of housing cases supported permission.

A secure tenant’s possession order was suspended on terms requiring payment of rent arrears. After the tenant failed to comply and a warrant was sought, the landlord applied to raise evidence of nuisance when seeking suspension of the warrant.

The Sheffield County Court dismissed the landlord’s appeal from a district judge’s preliminary ruling that matters unrelated to the ground on which possession had been ordered could not be raised on an application under section 85 of the Housing Act 1985. The landlord sought a second appeal, arguing that the statutory discretion to suspend execution of the warrant was unfettered. The issue was whether the proposed appeal satisfied the permission test in CPR 52.13.

1. Permission granted. The application was a second appeal, so CPR 52.13 required a real prospect of success and either an important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal.
2. The proposed appeal raised a properly arguable question of statutory construction. The issue was whether, when exercising the discretion to suspend a warrant under section 85 of the Housing Act 1985, the court was confined to matters relevant to the ground on which the possession order had been made, or could consider other matters relevant to suspension, including alleged nuisance.
3. The wording of section 85(3)(b), permitting the court to impose such other conditions as it thought fit, provided an arguable basis for contending that the discretion was not limited in the manner decided below. The interaction between section 85 and the wider statutory scheme for possession by secure landlords also required authoritative consideration.
4. The second limb of CPR 52.13 was satisfied. The issue was important because there was evidence of conflicting practice in county courts, and housing cases affected a large number of people.
5. The Court of Appeal therefore gave permission to appeal. The merits of the statutory issue were not determined.

• Sheffield County Court: A district judge ruled that matters other than those relevant to the ground relied on for possession could not be raised on an application to suspend a warrant. His Honour Judge Bartfield dismissed the landlord’s appeal on 7 December 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 28 March 2001, permission for a second appeal was granted under CPR 52.13. The substantive appeal was not decided in this judgment.