Arora v Anas

Permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason. A tenancy expressed for 24 months from a date normally excludes that date where the agreement shows that the end date is included. A statutory periodic tenancy follows the contractual period for which rent was due, rather than necessarily the interval at which it was actually paid. Restrictions in section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 concern the making of a possession order, not the court’s power to entertain proceedings. Deposit repayment under section 215 of the Housing Act 2004 is ordinarily a factual question. Medical difficulties and procedural complaints do not justify a second appeal without the required threshold being met.

Mr Anas was the tenant of a flat. On appeal from District Judge Price, HHJ Cowell held that the tenancy had been validly terminated under the Housing Act 1988. Permission for a second appeal was refused on the papers by Carnwath LJ.

On renewal before the Court of Appeal, Mr Anas sought an adjournment because of depression, asthma and stress. He challenged the construction of the tenancy term, the validity of the section 21 notice, the effect of deposit repayment, and aspects of the lower court’s procedure. The central question was whether any proposed ground satisfied the statutory threshold for a second appeal.

Application refused. Lord Justice Lewison refused the renewed application for an adjournment and permission to bring a second appeal.

1. Medical evidence supporting an adjournment should identify the medical attendant and familiarity with the patient, explain the condition and why it prevents participation, provide a reasoned prognosis, and give an independent opinion following proper examination. The court must assess the evidence with the material as a whole and is not bound to accept even a proper report. The doctor’s letter did not meet those requirements. Mr Anas’s stress, asthma and his son’s injury did not justify an adjournment, particularly as he presented his case fluently and articulately. The approach in Levy v Ellis-Carr & Ors [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch) was applied.
2. Under CPR Part 52.13(2), permission for a second appeal requires an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason. The proposed grounds met neither limb.
3. The contractual term of 24 months from 1 November 2008 ordinarily excluded the starting date. Since the agreement expressly included 1 November 2010, the term expired then and any statutory periodic tenancy began on 2 November 2010. Under section 5(3)(d) of the Housing Act 1988, the relevant period was the period for which rent was contractually due. The agreement provided for monthly rent, and four-weekly payments in fact did not alter the resulting monthly periodic tenancy.
4. The section 21 notice, dated 1 July 2011, was properly specified. Section 21 restrictions concern the making of possession orders, not the court’s jurisdiction to entertain proceedings. This differed from section 83 of the Housing Act 1985 and section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which restrict the entertaining of proceedings unless specified notices have been served. The related point described as obiter in Lower Street Properties v Jones [1996] 28 HLR 877 therefore did not arise.
5. Whether the deposit had been repaid for the purposes of section 215 of the Housing Act 2004 was a question of fact. The acknowledgments signed by Mr Anas entitled the judge to find an estoppel. The alleged lack of authority of the person who returned the money did not determine whether repayment occurred. Section 215 concerned repayment, not an agreement about serving a section 21 notice.
6. Granting permission to appeal and dismissing the appeal at the same hearing was not inherently contradictory. Although the two-stage procedure allowed the respondent an opportunity to be heard, the unusual procedure caused no sufficient prejudice and did not raise a qualifying point for a second appeal.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Carnwath LJ refused permission for a second appeal on the papers. On renewal, Lord Justice Lewison refused an adjournment and refused permission to appeal.
• Central London Civil Justice Centre (HHJ Cowell): on appeal from District Judge Price, held that the tenancy had been validly terminated under the Housing Act 1988.