Messer & Anor v Messer

An appeal against a county-court committal order lies to the Court of Appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, and permission to appeal is not required. A later out-of-time application duplicating an extant appeal should be dismissed. A stay may be ordered pending prompt determination of the committal appeal, while the underlying possession orders remain outside its scope.

Following the breakdown of the parties’ relationship, the respondent obtained possession orders concerning property occupied by the appellant. A further possession order was made in March 2002, followed by a committal order on 19 January 2004 and execution of the possession warrant.

The appellant pursued several applications. An in-time appeal against the committal order was mistakenly listed before a High Court judge and remained outstanding. A later application challenged the refusal of a stay, while a further application sought an extension of time to challenge the committal order. The central issue was how those applications should be managed while preserving the appellant’s right to have the committal order considered by the Court of Appeal.

1. Disposition. Application B1/2004/0396 was dismissed. The extension of time sought in B1/2004/2144 was refused and that application was dismissed. A stay of execution was ordered pending the appeal, which was directed to be heard in January 2005.
2. Under CPR 52.1 and section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, an appeal from a county-court order or decision exercising jurisdiction to punish for contempt lies to the civil division of the Court of Appeal. Under CPR 52.3, permission to appeal is not required where the appeal is against a committal order.
3. The in-time appeal against the committal order, issued on 21 January 2004, remained outstanding. It should have been listed before the Court of Appeal and heard promptly, with the respondent’s representatives present.
4. The appeal was confined to the committal order itself. It could not be used to challenge the underlying possession orders, which had already been the subject of unsuccessful applications.
5. The later application was out of time and duplicated the extant appeal. Although the appellant’s case might have little merit, she was entitled to have the committal order considered by a full Court of Appeal. Given the history of delay and the imminent hearing, a stay pending appeal was appropriate.
6. A transcript was directed to be prepared and supplied to the appellant at public expense, with a copy sent to the respondent’s advisers.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The court directed that the extant appeal against the 19 January 2004 committal order be heard by the Court of Appeal without permission, dismissed the duplicative applications, refused an extension of time, and ordered a stay pending appeal.
• High Court: Several applications concerning permission to appeal and attempts to set aside earlier orders were refused or dismissed. Poole J refused permission and declined to grant a stay, while recognising that the committal order itself was appealable without permission.
• County Court: On 19 January 2004, His Honour Judge Sennett made the committal order and ordered execution of the possession warrant.