Ammar Al Saleh & Anor v Croydon Estates Limited

An appeal court will refuse permission where the proposed grounds disclose no viable basis for challenging findings of fact, the evaluation of payments, or the application of an informal payment arrangement. Payments made by third parties do not, without more, establish that those third parties were the tenants. An estoppel argument raised for the first time on appeal will face a substantial procedural difficulty and cannot succeed without an evidential foundation. Where arrears remain unpaid, a dispute about the identity of the tenant does not necessarily undermine the entitlement to forfeit. Liability for post-forfeiture use and occupation remains distinct from earlier rent and arrears liabilities.

Croydon Estates Limited claimed possession of commercial premises and monetary orders against five defendants in the Central London County Court. HHJ Roberts ordered possession, judgment against Hoffman Estates Ltd for £180,342.40, and judgment against Ammar Al Saleh for £45,515.40, with interest.

The appellants, Ammar Al Saleh and Swalih Ltd, sought permission to appeal. They challenged the identification of the phase 2 tenant, the treatment and allocation of payments, the June 2021 informal arrangement, forfeiture, and the subsequent liability for use and occupation. They also advanced an estoppel argument at the oral reconsideration hearing.

1. Permission refused. The judge concluded that the renewed application disclosed no viable ground of appeal. The earlier refusal of permission by Sir Stephen Stewart was correct.
2. The trial judge was entitled to find that Hoffman Estates Ltd, rather than Swalih Ltd, remained the tenant during the period between expiry of the lease and forfeiture. Payments made by Swalih Ltd, Ammar Al Saleh and Star Lounge Ltd did not compel a different conclusion. The contemporaneous documents and the evidence supported the finding that the June 2021 informal arrangement concerned ongoing payments and accumulated arrears, but did not include an agreement for a new lease in the name of Swalih Ltd.
3. The findings concerning the figures, dates and allocation of payments were findings of fact which could not realistically be challenged on appeal. The phase 2 shortfall therefore remained sufficient to support forfeiture.
4. The estoppel argument had not been advanced at trial. In any event, it had no evidential foundation, was inconsistent with the trial judge’s findings, and could not explain the payment shortfalls before December 2022. It could not therefore undermine the forfeiture on 9 January 2023.
5. The grounds did not affect the separate phase 3 liability of Ammar Al Saleh for use and occupation after forfeiture. The finding that he occupied the premises and was liable at the daily rate of £325.11 was not shown to be arguably wrong.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Central London County Court: HHJ Roberts gave judgment on 30 January 2024, reference K00CL426. Possession was ordered, with monetary judgments against Hoffman Estates Ltd and Ammar Al Saleh.
• High Court (King's Bench Division): Sir Stephen Stewart refused permission to appeal on the papers on 28 November 2024. Fordham J refused the renewed application for permission to appeal on 22 January 2025.