Sylvia Debenham-Schon v Anchor Hanover Group

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no properly arguable error and there is no realistic prospect that the first-instance judgment or order would be overturned. An appellate court does not re-try factual disputes or conduct a fact-finding exercise on post-judgment events. Fresh evidence must be capable of affecting the correctness of the decision under appeal. Communications with the court which address matters affecting enforcement or contain substantive factual assertions are not purely administrative and should ordinarily be copied to the opposing party under CPR 39.8.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against a possession order made by Recorder Rahman at Liverpool County Court on 5 August 2021. The order followed findings that her conduct satisfied Grounds 12 and 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, and that there was no reason to exercise the extended discretion under section 9. She challenged the factual findings, the treatment of medical evidence, alleged procedural unfairness, and the refusal to address matters raised in her counterclaim. The High Court also considered continuation of the stay and communications sent to the court without copying her.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The judge below had conscientiously considered the evidence, including live testimony, documentary material and videos, and had made findings of fact plainly open to him. The appellant’s disagreement with those findings, or with the weight given to particular evidence, did not disclose a properly arguable ground or a realistic prospect of success.
2. The first-instance judge had not impermissibly relied on the appellant’s medical diagnosis to determine what had occurred. He evaluated the direct evidence and made factual findings about the conduct, while recognising that she had capacity to conduct the proceedings and had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
3. Any unpleaded or unissued claim for damages did not provide a basis for refusing possession in light of the findings made. Nor could post-judgment factual material assist on permission to appeal. The High Court was not sitting as a fact-finding court and there was no realistic prospect that fresh evidence about subsequent events would overturn the decision under appeal.
4. Following refusal of permission, the stay was continued for 26 days, mirroring the period allowed by the county court before enforcement. No further stay was justified.
5. Communications from the respondent’s solicitors to the court concerning the progress of the appeal, enforcement, events at the housing scheme and alleged ongoing conduct were not purely administrative. The appellant should have been copied in under CPR 39.8.
6. The stay was extended to 6 December 2021, after which the possession order could be enforced by warrant. There was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Permission to appeal from the Liverpool County Court possession order was refused. The stay of the warrant was extended to 6 December 2021.
• Liverpool County Court: Recorder Rahman made a possession order on 5 August 2021, finding that Grounds 12 and 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 were satisfied and declining to exercise the extended discretion under section 9.