Polar Park Enterprises v Allason

Where a dwelling is occupied under a qualifying licence and the licence has ended, the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 restricts enforcement of the owner’s possession rights to the court having the relevant jurisdiction. A licence may be granted for money’s worth even where the consideration is not rent or a fee. Repairing, insuring and paying outgoings may constitute the necessary quid pro quo for occupation. Proceedings in the wrong court are not necessarily invalid: substantive disputes about ownership, beneficial interests or sale may be determined in the High Court, but enforcement must take place in the appropriate county court.

Polar Park Enterprises obtained judgment for possession of residential premises against Rupert Allason. The proceedings had been brought in the High Court because they involved disputed beneficial ownership, adverse possession, an alleged life interest and an alternative claim for sale under Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Mr Allason’s appeal had been dismissed, and the court permitted a writ of possession to issue subject to conditions.

After those conditions were not strictly complied with and possession was taken, Mr Allason applied under CPR 3.1(7) to revoke the relevant parts of the order. He argued that he was a lawful occupier when a licence granted to his former wife ended, and that execution was governed by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The central issues were whether the licence was for money’s worth, whether it had ended, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to enforce the possession order.

1. Application granted. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the January order had been made without jurisdiction and were set aside. The proceedings were to be transferred to the appropriate county court for execution.
2. Section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, as extended to licences, applied where premises had been occupied as a dwelling under a non-excluded licence, the licence had ended, and a person was lawfully residing there when it ended. The owner could not enforce the possession right otherwise than through the court identified by section 9.
3. The licence granted to Mrs Allason was for money’s worth. The obligations to keep the property in repair and insured were valuable benefits to the owner and constituted the quid pro quo for occupation, even though they were not expressed as a rent or occupation fee. The decision in West Wiltshire District Council v Snelgrove [1997] 30 HLR 57 was distinguished because the payments there related to services, utilities and food rather than the right of occupation.
4. The licence had ended when Mrs Allason left the property. No separate licence to Mr Allason or the children had been proved. Mr Allason was therefore a lawful occupier when the former licence ended, and the statutory protection applied.
5. The Act did not invalidate the High Court proceedings altogether. The High Court was competent to determine the substantial disputes concerning ownership, beneficial interests, adverse possession, a life interest and sale under section 14 of the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Its judgment remained binding between the parties, but execution had to be dealt with in the county court.

1. Master Moncaster: On 7 July 2006, judgment for possession was given to Polar Park Enterprises and execution was stayed pending Mr Allason’s application for permission to appeal and any diligent appeal.
2. High Court: Permission to appeal was granted on 3 October 2006, but the appeal was dismissed on 22 January 2007.
3. High Court (Chancery Division): On 18 April 2007, Mr Allason’s CPR 3.1(7) application was granted in relation to enforcement jurisdiction.