Bromford Housing Association Ltd v Nightingale & Anor

Where a stay on possession proceedings is in force when an appeal hearing takes place, the court may defer handing down its reserved judgment so that the parties can make further submissions after the stay is lifted. The position differs where the hearing concluded before the stay began and only the handing down of judgment remained. A later decision on lifting a stay for the limited purpose of handing down judgment does not require the same course in a case heard during the stay.

The court had heard a rolled-up application for permission to appeal, with an appeal to follow if permission were granted. Before judgment was handed down, the court considered the effect of the stay imposed by PD 51Z and the subsequent judgments in Arkin v Marshall and London Borough of Hackney v Okoro. It had ordered that judgment would not be handed down until the stay was lifted and that the parties would then have 14 days to make further written submissions.

The parties later drew attention to Copeland v Royal Bank of Scotland plc, where the stay was lifted for the narrow purpose of issuing a reserved judgment. The issue was whether that approach required reconsideration of the order in the present appeal.

1. The order made on 28 May 2020 remained in place. Judgment would not be handed down until after the stay imposed by PD 51Z was lifted, and the parties would then have 14 days to lodge further written submissions or indicate that they sought no further hearing.
2. The court distinguished Copeland v Royal Bank of Scotland plc. In that case, the oral argument had concluded before PD 51Z came into force and the reserved judgment merely remained to be handed down. In the present case, the stay was already in force when the appeal hearing took place.
3. The distinction was material. Had the court and parties known of the Court of Appeal judgments in Arkin v Marshall and London Borough of Hackney v Okoro at the hearing, the proceedings would have been stayed and the hearing would not have taken place. It was therefore consistent with the spirit of the stay to give the parties a further opportunity to make submissions before judgment was handed down.
4. The practical effect was similar to the order in Copeland v Royal Bank of Scotland plc, although the present course involved a short additional delay after the stay ended.

The judgment records a rolled-up application for permission to appeal, with an appeal to follow if permission were granted. The court’s present decision concerned only the timing of further steps and whether its earlier procedural order should be reconsidered.