Tabor Properties Limited v Siddique

Clerical errors in a possession order do not undermine the substance or force of the trial judgment where the order is corrected and the basis of possession remains clear. Complaints about witness assessments after a full trial will not justify permission to appeal where no arguable error in the judgment or findings is identified. Administrative mistakes should be addressed through correction by the court administration, rather than treated as grounds for an appeal.

Tabor Properties Limited obtained an order for possession of commercial premises from the Southend County Court after a three-day trial. Deputy Circuit Judge Rice found significant breaches of covenant and ordered possession within 28 days. The drawn order mistakenly identified the defendant’s private residence as the possession address and stated that possession resulted from non-payment of rent. The court apologised and amended the order. The defendant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, relying principally on those errors and making brief complaints about the underlying judgment. The central issue was whether the corrected administrative errors, or the trial judge’s findings, disclosed a proper basis for permission to appeal.

1. Application refused. Permission to appeal was not granted.
2. The possession order concerned premises at 234 Shaftesbury Avenue. The errors in the drawn order, which referred to the defendant’s private residence and incorrectly recited non-payment of rent as the basis for possession, were unfortunate but administrative. They did not alter the nature or force of the judgment, which was based on significant breaches of covenant. The errors had been properly corrected by the county court.
3. There were no grounds for an appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning the county court administration’s mistakes. The appropriate course was to seek administrative correction or assistance, as necessary.
4. The defendant’s brief complaints about the judgment itself disclosed no possible challenge to the trial judge’s findings. The judgment was careful and its conclusions principally depended on the judge’s assessment of witness evidence after a three-day trial in which both parties were represented. No arguable basis for permission to appeal was established.

• Southend County Court: On 14 June 2001, Deputy Circuit Judge Rice ordered possession of the premises within 28 days after a three-day trial, based on significant breaches of covenant.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused on 24 January 2002.