London Borough of Hackney v Okoro

A stay of all possession proceedings initiated under CPR Part 55 extends to appellate stages of those proceedings in the Court of Appeal. The fact that the procedure for an appeal is governed by CPR Part 52 does not alter the character of the underlying proceedings as proceedings brought under Part 55.

This construction gives effect to the blanket public-health and court-capacity purpose of PD 51Z. Subject to its express exceptions, an appeal from a possession order cannot proceed while the automatic stay remains in force.

Hackney issued a CPR Part 55 possession claim against its tenant, Mr Okoro. On 24 January 2020, a district judge made a possession order and adjourned associated money claims. A circuit judge later granted Mr Okoro permission to appeal and stayed the possession order pending that appeal.

After PD 51Z came into force, HHJ Dight vacated the listed appeal hearing and transferred the question of the stay’s effect for determination. The Court of Appeal granted permission on the resulting appeal, which raised the central issue whether the automatic stay under PD 51Z applied to an extant appeal from a possession order.

Decision

1. The court allowed the appeal. PD 51Z stayed Mr Okoro’s appeal from the possession order, subject to the exceptions in paragraph 2A.

2. Paragraph 2 stays all proceedings for possession brought under CPR Part 55. That wording identifies the means by which the proceedings were initiated. Proceedings retain that character when they are under appeal, even though CPR Part 52 supplies the procedural regime for the appeal.

3. The construction was reinforced by the purpose of PD 51Z. As explained in Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620, the stay was intended to protect public health and relieve County Court capacity during the pandemic. Those objectives are served by staying possession appeals as well as first-instance claims. It would also be anomalous for an application to set aside an order made in a party’s absence to be stayed while an appeal seeking the same practical result was not.

4. The reference to enforcement did not narrow the phrase concerning proceedings brought under Part 55. That phrase was capable of covering each stage through to final judgment in the Court of Appeal. It could not stay an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court because a practice direction made under CPR rule 51.2 lay beyond the Master of the Rolls’ jurisdiction in relation to that court.

5. HHJ Dight had been entitled implicitly to lift the stay in order to obtain a determination of the jurisdictional question. Once clarified, however, the appeal and other outstanding matters were to return to the County Court for further consideration after the PD 51Z stay ended.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and held that PD 51Z automatically stayed the appeal from the possession order. The outstanding matters were returned to the County Court after the stay’s termination.
• County Court at Central London: DDJ Tomlinson made a possession order on 24 January 2020. HHJ Monty QC granted permission to appeal and stayed that order. HHJ Dight later vacated the appeal hearing and arranged for the jurisdictional issue concerning PD 51Z to be determined.