Calvert v London Borough Of Southwark Council

Where a litigant in person seeks permission to appeal and the court cannot reliably establish the basic facts, issues, or effect of the order under challenge, the application should be adjourned so that the matter can be heard on notice with proper assistance from the proposed respondent.

A right to buy is unlikely, before completion, to have the character of an option or an estate contract capable of protecting a claimant against possession proceedings.

Mr Calvert applied for permission to appeal in long-running landlord and tenant proceedings concerning possession of a council flat, rent arrears, damages for use and occupation, and alleged failures to process right-to-buy applications.

The application arose from an order of the Lambeth County Court dated 18 January 2002, which refused permission to appeal and imposed costs. The procedural effect of that order was uncertain, and Southwark was not represented at the present, initially without-notice hearing.

The central questions were whether Mr Calvert had a right to seek permission, whether the application belonged in the Court of Appeal, whether permission should be granted, and whether any extant proceedings justified further protection from eviction.

1. Application adjourned. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned to be heard on notice by two Lords Justices. The court considered that the papers and the absence of Southwark made it impossible to establish the whole of the basic facts and the real issues reliably.
2. The court identified four matters requiring determination: the true effect of the county court order of 18 January 2002; whether any appeal lay to the Court of Appeal; whether permission should be granted; and whether other extant county court proceedings justified extending protection from eviction.
3. The court treated the procedural uncertainty as particularly important because the order appeared to refuse permission to appeal, but might also have been intended to dismiss an appeal against an earlier order. The analysis of Lloyd J was noted but not accepted as necessarily correct without further investigation.
4. As a provisional indication only, the court considered that any right-to-buy claim was unlikely to protect Mr Calvert from eviction. Until fully exercised, the right to buy was not likely to operate like an option or an estate contract, referring to Bradford City Metropolitan Council v McMahon [1994] 1 WLR 52 (CA) and Bristol City Council v Lovell [1998] 1 WLR 446 (HL).
5. The application was adjourned on notice, with a transcript to be provided at public expense. No final determination of permission to appeal or the substantive right-to-buy issues was made.

• Lambeth County Court: On 18 January 2002, Judge Cox refused permission to appeal and made a costs order. The precise effect of the order was uncertain.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The permission application was adjourned to be heard on notice by two Lords Justices.