London Borough of Hackney v Okoro

This appeal concerned the scope of Practice Direction 51Z ("PD 51Z") which imposed an automatic 90-day stay on "all proceedings for possession brought under CPR Part 55" during the coronavirus pandemic. The court held that the phrase "brought under CPR Part 55" is broad enough to include appeals from possession orders that originate in Part 55, because the word "brought" focuses on how the proceedings were initiated and they remain proceedings brought under Part 55 even when governed in procedure by CPR Part 52.

The court applied purposive construction: staying appeals furthers PD 51Z's objective to protect County Court capacity and public health, and it would be anomalous if applications to set aside possession orders made absent a defendant were covered by the stay but Part 55 appeals achieving the same result were not. The court noted the express exceptions in paragraph 2A and confirmed that PD 51Z cannot operate to stay appeals to the Supreme Court because those appeals fall outside the Master of the Rolls' jurisdiction to make such practice directions.

Background and parties: The claimant was the London Borough of Hackney; the appellant tenant was Kevin Okoro. Hackney issued a possession claim under CPR Part 55 on 20 December 2019. A possession order was made on 24 January 2020 by DDJ Tomlinson. Permission to appeal was subsequently granted and the appeal was listed. PD 51Z came into force on 27 March 2020.

Nature of the application: The appeal raised a discrete issue: whether the automatic stay in PD 51Z applies to appeals from possession orders that were extant when the stay began, or whether it applies only to first instance Part 55 proceedings and enforcement.

Procedural history: Permission to appeal was granted on 25 February 2020 and the appeal was stayed by HHJ Monty pending outcome. PD 51Z then took effect on 27 March 2020. HHJ Dight vacated a scheduled hearing and referred the jurisdictional question to the High Court. The Chancellor transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal on 19 May 2020, granting permission to appeal on grounds of principle.

Issues framed: (i) Does paragraph 2 of PD 51Z, stating that "all proceedings for possession brought under CPR Part 55" are stayed, include appeals from possession orders? (ii) If appeals are included, are there limits to that effect (for example, appeals to the Supreme Court)?

Court's reasoning: The court read paragraph 2 broadly and emphasised the word "brought", concluding that proceedings remain those "brought under CPR Part 55" even while governed procedurally by CPR Part 52 on appeal. The purposive context established in Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620 — protection of court capacity and public health — supported including appeals within the stay. The court observed the statutory and practice limits of the Master of the Rolls' power to make practice directions and held that PD 51Z could not stay appeals to the Supreme Court, which lie outside that jurisdiction. The court also noted the express exceptions in paragraph 2A of PD 51Z and that enforcement of possession orders made under other rules was prevented by paragraph 2.

Disposition: The appeal was allowed. The court ordered that the stay imposed by PD 51Z applied to Mr Okoro's appeal; outstanding matters will return to the County Court after the stay ends. The judgment noted PD 51Z's stated expiry date.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that paragraph 2 of Practice Direction 51Z stays appeals from possession orders that were "brought under CPR Part 55", because the word "brought" focuses on how proceedings were initiated and such proceedings remain Part 55 proceedings even when the appeal procedure is governed by CPR Part 52. The court relied on the purposive aim of PD 51Z to protect court capacity and public health, and recognised the express exceptions in paragraph 2A; it also confirmed that PD 51Z cannot operate to stay appeals to the Supreme Court as those lie outside the Master of the Rolls' rule-making jurisdiction.

County Court possession claim issued 20 December 2019; possession order made 24 January 2020 (DDJ Tomlinson). Permission to appeal granted 25 February 2020 (HHJ Monty) and the appeal was stayed. Practice Direction 51Z came into force 27 March 2020. HHJ Dight vacated the appeal hearing and referred the jurisdictional question to the High Court on 15 May 2020. The Chancellor transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal and granted permission to appeal on 19 May 2020. The Court of Appeal decided the issue on 27 May 2020 ([2020] EWCA Civ 681). The judgment follows and applies the reasoning in Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620.