Mortgage Express v Christopher Ramsay

The court considered an application for an extension of time and permission to appeal out of time against orders made by HHJ Roberts on 8 December 2021 concerning (1) a stay/abortion of eviction application and (2) the Claimant’s application to transfer enforcement of a possession order to the High Court pursuant to the County Courts Act 1984 s.42(2). The governing principles were CPR 52.6 and 52.21 (real prospect of success or some other compelling reason), with analogy to CPR 39.3 and CPR 23.11 on applications where a party did not attend.

The court found on the evidence (including the transcript) that the contested hearing on 8 December 2021 did take place and rejected the Defendant’s allegation that the order was a forgery or that there had been deliberate bad faith by the Claimant or the court. On the facts, the transfer to the High Court was justified because of repeated failures to surrender possession and practical enforcement concerns. The stay application and the human rights and Equality Act arguments lacked any real prospect of success.

Accordingly, the court granted an extension of time for lodging the appeal but refused permission to appeal except that it set aside the specific order recording that the Defendant’s stay application was "totally without merit" and otherwise dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

Background and parties: Mortgage Express (the lender) sought enforcement of a possession order against Mr Ramsay in respect of 5 Ruben Place, Enfield. The County Court possession order dated July 2018 led to multiple enforcement attempts and arrears. At a Microsoft Teams hearing on 8 December 2021 (in the Defendant’s absence) the county judge dismissed the Defendant’s stay application and granted the Claimant’s application to transfer enforcement to the High Court under the County Courts Act 1984 s.42(2). The Defendant later applied for permission to appeal out of time and an extension of time, asserting he had not known of the Teams hearing, alleging impropriety and arguing the orders should be set aside.

• The nature of the application: an application to extend time and for permission to appeal out of time against the 8 December 2021 orders (transfer to High Court; dismissal of stay; a declaration that the stay application was totally without merit).
• Issues framed: whether there had been a hearing and, if not, whether the order was forged or tainted by procedural irregularity or bad faith; whether the Defendant acted promptly once he learned of the order; whether there was a real prospect of success on appeal on the Transfer Application or the Stay Application; and whether relief from sanctions was required.

Court’s reasoning and disposition: the transcript established that the hearing did occur and there was no satisfactory evidence of deliberate forgery or bad faith. The judge applied the CPR tests (CPR 52.6 and 52.21) and relevant authorities on procedural irregularity and second appeals, and considered the analogy with CPR 39.3 / CPR 23.11 for absent parties. On delay, the court accepted that the Defendant did not know of the order until November 2022 and granted an extension of time. On the merits, the court found no real prospect that an appellate or rehearing court would upset the transfer to the High Court (it was justified by repeated failed enforcement attempts and the greater enforcement powers of High Court procedures) and no real prospect that the stay application or the Defendant’s Equality Act and Article 8 arguments would succeed. However, given the complex procedural background, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the specific finding that the stay application was "totally without merit." In short, extension of time was allowed, permission to appeal was refused save that the "totally without merit" finding was set aside.

Allowed in part. The court granted an extension of time for filing the appeal but refused permission to appeal (no real prospect of success) against the Transfer and Stay Orders. The court nonetheless set aside the part of the order recording that the Defendant’s stay application was "totally without merit" because that specific finding was inappropriate in the complex factual context.

On appeal to the High Court (King's Bench Division) from an order of HHJ Richard Roberts in the Central London County Court. This judgment records the High Court's determination on the Defendant's application for extension of time and permission to appeal out of time against the County Court orders of 8 December 2021.