Halifax Plc v Olanrewaju

On a second appeal, permission may be granted where an important point of practice or principle, or another compelling reason, justifies appellate intervention. A court exercising a discretion, particularly where a person’s home is at risk, must give reasons showing how that discretion was applied. A bare statement that the discretion was exercised judicially, followed by the result, may be insufficient. The relevant factors should be identified and addressed. The court may adjourn the permission application and require further evidence where the procedural history, arrears, contractual terms and costs are unclear.

Deputy District Judge Wallis permitted Halifax Plc to issue a warrant for possession of the applicant’s home. His Honour Judge Callman dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 14 September 2001. The applicant sought permission for a second appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the lower courts had adequately reasoned their exercise of discretion, and whether further information was required concerning the mortgage, arrears, legal costs, contractual terms and delay. The application was adjourned on notice, with the appeal to follow if permission were granted.

1. Permission and reasons. The application concerned a second appeal, so the applicant had to show an important point of practice or principle or another compelling reason. The absence of discernible reasons in the decisions below, despite the risk to the applicant’s home and allegations of heavy-handed conduct, might itself provide a compelling reason.
2. Exercise of discretion. It was insufficient merely to recite that a discretion existed and had to be exercised judicially. The court should explain how the discretion was applied and should address relevant factors, including those identified in Duer v Frazer [2001] 1 All ER 249.
3. Further investigation. The Court required a chronology, the relevant possession and permission applications, supporting evidence concerning delay and arrears, the mortgage history, a redemption statement, a proper transcript of the earlier judgment, and the original mortgage documents. These matters were necessary to determine the arrears, the effect of any discharged arrears, the possible application of section 36, and Halifax’s entitlement to add legal costs to the mortgage debt.
4. Directions and outcome. The application was adjourned to be heard before the end of July 2002 on notice to Halifax, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted. Execution of the possession order was stayed meanwhile. The parties were allowed two months to pursue alternative dispute resolution.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to bring a second appeal was adjourned on notice, with any appeal to follow if permission were granted.
• Mayors & City of London Court: His Honour Judge Callman dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 14 September 2001.
• District Judge: Deputy District Judge Wallis ordered that Halifax Plc have permission to issue a warrant for possession of the applicant’s home.