Friendship Care and Housing Association Ltd v Awotula

A landlord may transfer its reversion subject to an existing tenancy, provided the tenant is notified of the transfer in accordance with Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A possession claim is governed by CPR Part 55, not the default judgment provisions in Part 12. A court may make an extended civil restraint order where a party has persistently issued claims or applications that are totally without merit, but jurisdiction and discretion must both be established.

The claimant had acquired the freehold of the defendant’s rented property and obtained a possession order for rent arrears. The defendant repeatedly applied to set aside the possession order and warrant, challenged the transfer of the tenancy, and sought orders concerning possessions left at the property.

The High Court considered applications concerning earlier county court and High Court orders, permission to appeal, the validity and enforcement of the possession order, and an extended civil restraint order. The central issues were whether the defendant had an arguable defence, whether the possession order was a default judgment, and whether the statutory threshold and discretionary conditions for a civil restraint order were met.

1. Applications 1 and 2. The defendant had no possible substantive defence. A landlord may sell or transfer its reversion subject to the tenancy. The claimant had notified the defendant of the transfer as required by section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 concerned the former landlord’s release from covenants and did not affect the transfer.
2. An order refusing permission to appeal could not itself be appealed: section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The challenge to that aspect of the earlier order was therefore correctly struck out.
3. The possession order was not a default judgment. CPR Part 12 had no application because possession claims do not require a written response from the defendant. Such claims are governed by the comprehensive regime in CPR Part 55, which required the claim to be listed for hearing and expressly applied to a landlord’s possession claim. The defendant could have sought to set aside the order, but he could not show a possible defence or resulting prejudice.
4. The applications were refused as totally without merit. The possession order remained legally valid and the warrant was properly executed. The claimant had no continuing obligation to store the defendant’s possessions, although it had to provide a reasonable opportunity for their collection and removal.
5. Extended civil restraint order. The court had jurisdiction under CPR 3 PD 3C because the defendant had persistently issued applications and appeals declared totally without merit. Persistence required more than two such claims or applications, as explained in Courtman v Ludlum [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch). The court then exercised its discretion to make an extended order, having regard to the burden imposed on the claimant and the finite resources of the courts. The order lasted two years and required permission before proceedings or applications concerning the claimant, the tenancy, the property, or the action could be issued.

1. High Court (Queen's Bench Division): Applications concerning orders made by Leicester County Court and by His Honour Judge Worster were refused. Permission to appeal was refused where appropriate, and an extended civil restraint order was made.