London Borough of Southwark v Ofogba

In a possession claim brought under CPR Part 55 and allocated to the multi-track, the claim is treated as a Part 7 claim for determining the route of appeal. An appeal against a final decision in such a claim lies directly to the Court of Appeal under article 4(a) of the Destination Order. Where the trial has been split in substance, a final decision on one part may attract that route even though another part remains outstanding. A non-final decision, including an adjournment of a possession claim with permission to restore, is ordinarily appealable to the High Court. However, where the relevant issues arise in one appeal and the interests of procedural efficiency require a single forum, the High Court may transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The defendant, a secure tenant, faced possession proceedings and a claim for rent arrears. After trial, the county court gave judgment for the arrears but adjourned the possession claim with permission to restore. The defendant sought to appeal findings concerning the arrears and the adjournment. Permission was initially granted in the High Court, while the local authority also lodged a respondent’s notice.

The central issue was whether different parts of the county court’s order attracted different appellate routes under the Access to Justice Act (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000 and the Civil Procedure Rules.

1. The appeal concerning the money judgment was within the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The claim was brought under CPR Part 55, which treats possession claims as Part 7 claims. By the time of trial it had been allocated to the multi-track. The money claim therefore fell within article 4(a) of the Destination Order.

2. A final decision is one which would finally determine the entire proceedings, subject to appeal. A decision is treated as final where it is made at the conclusion of a part of a hearing or trial which has in fact been split into parts, and would have been final had it been made at the conclusion of the whole hearing. The substance of the division matters; a formal split-trial direction is unnecessary.

3. The court emphasised that the direct route applies whether the county court judge is a circuit judge or a district judge. It also applies where the decision under appeal was itself made on an appeal in the county court, by virtue of article 5. Case-management orders concerning issues that remain outstanding are not final decisions.

4. The judgment on rent arrears was final because that part of the trial had been determined. The adjournment of the possession claim was not final and would ordinarily have been appealable to the High Court. The High Court therefore revoked the permission granted in respect of the arrears grounds. Permission concerning the adjournment had been properly granted, but that appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal under rule 52.14(1)(b) so that all issues could be dealt with in one forum.

5. Careful track allocation is required in possession claims because it affects both costs and the route of appeal. On the facts, allocation to the multi-track was correct.

• Central London County Court: HHJ Faber gave judgment for rent arrears and adjourned the possession claim with liberty to restore.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): the High Court revoked permission on the arrears grounds because those matters were appealable directly to the Court of Appeal. The appeal concerning the adjournment was transferred to the Court of Appeal under CPR rule 52.14(1)(b).