Ghassemian v de Beaumont & Anor

A possession claim subject to the coronavirus possession-proceedings stay must remain stayed during the period prescribed by the applicable practice direction and rules. Where material evidence suggests that a claimant may have misled the court when an extended civil restraint order was continued, the court may continue the stay after the general stay expires so that the order’s scope and any further order can be considered at a hearing. The court should preserve the affected claimant’s opportunity to make submissions before determining those issues.

The claimant had been subject to an extended civil restraint order concerning repeated proceedings relating to a property. A possession claim issued in the County Court shortly before the order was continued was transferred to the High Court and stayed. The court also discovered that the claimant had apparently supplied an unauthorised version of an earlier judgment and had not disclosed the possession claim when the extended order was considered.

The possession claim was already stayed under PD51Z because of the coronavirus pandemic. The issue was whether the court should determine immediately whether the claim contravened the extended civil restraint order, and whether the stay should continue after the general coronavirus stay ended.

1. Coronavirus stay. The possession claim was subject to the mandatory stay imposed by PD51Z. The court therefore continued the stay on that ground, although the order was technically unnecessary while the practice direction remained in force.
2. Continuation after expiry of the general stay. The stay imposed by PD51Z was due to expire on 25 June 2020. The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020 would temporarily amend Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 so that possession proceedings remained stayed until 23 August 2020. The court directed that this statutory continuation be reflected in the order.
3. Outstanding civil restraint issues. The court declined to decide immediately whether the extended civil restraint order made on 3 December 2019 operated retrospectively or prohibited continuation of the County Court possession claim. The claimant appeared to have misled the court about proceedings issued during the relevant period. That circumstance justified continuing the stay after the coronavirus stay ended until a hearing could determine the scope of the order and whether any further order should be made concerning the period between 27 October and 3 December 2019.
4. The hearing would also give the claimant an opportunity to make submissions. Persons affected by the order made without a hearing retained the right to apply to set it aside or vary it, but only after the coronavirus stay expired.