Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Julia McGeoch

An appeal court may determine a possession claim itself where the registered owner’s title is admitted, the occupant’s licence has ended and no defence remains. Remittal is unnecessary if no issue remains for the lower court. A former licensee who stays after termination is ordinarily a trespasser. The court doubted whether section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 applied, and explained that it limits existing postponement powers rather than creating them. The owner’s consent supported a six-week period to leave. Costs generally follow the party successful overall; absent good reason, a reasonable payment on account should be ordered. A stay pending appeal requires a balance of the risks of injustice. Inability to fund an appeal requires cogent evidence, while eviction’s consequences for a co-resident may count as harm to the appellant.

Ocorian, the registered owner of Stapleford Farm, brought possession proceedings against McGeoch, who occupied the property under a licence. The County Court at Southampton refused Ocorian’s strike-out and summary judgment applications and permitted McGeoch to amend her defence and bring a counterclaim. On appeal, the High Court allowed Ocorian’s appeal in Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Julia McGeoch [2026] EWHC 1575 (Ch). This further judgment dealt with consequential matters: whether to make a possession order or remit the claim, when possession should be given, costs and an interim payment, and whether any orders should be stayed pending a proposed second appeal.

1. The court had power under CPR rule 52.20 to make the possession order itself. Ocorian’s registered ownership was admitted and gave it a prima facie right to possession. McGeoch entered under a licence which had been determined, and the defences had been defeated. No issue remained for the County Court, so remittal would cause unnecessary delay. The court also observed, conditionally, that if entry by the owner were necessary, issuing the possession claim would suffice for that purpose.

2. The court considered the timing of possession under section 89 of the Housing Act 1980. No exception in subsection (2) applied, but the judge doubted whether section 89 applied to a former licensee who had become a trespasser. It limits an existing power to postpone possession; it does not itself create a power where none existed. The issue was not finally determined. The landowner could nevertheless agree to give the former licensee time to leave. Ocorian consented to up to six weeks, and the court made a possession order suspended for that period.

3. Applying the general costs rules, the appellant had succeeded overall and there was no good reason to depart from the rule that the unsuccessful party pays. The particulars of claim complied with the applicable possession-claim requirements. The redaction complaint was insufficiently particularised and had been raised too late. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the possession proceedings, the applications below and the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

4. CPR rule 44.2(8) required a reasonable payment on account absent good reason. The absence of a costs budget or agreement did not justify refusing any payment. Taking account of the certified schedules and the less certain additional costs, the court ordered £106,000 within 14 days.

5. A stay required a balance of the risks of injustice. The court refused a stay of the costs order: McGeoch had not provided cogent evidence of inability to fund an appeal or of a risk that Ocorian could not repay costs if she succeeded. The possession order presented a different risk. Immediate eviction could affect McGeoch through the circumstances of her elderly mother, business and animals; those consequences were not merely harm to a separate third party. The court stayed the possession order for 21 days and, if an application for permission to appeal was made in that period, until the Court of Appeal disposed of that application. The stay did not extend to the costs orders.

1. High Court (Chancery Appeals): This further judgment made consequential orders following the appeal decision in Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Julia McGeoch [2026] EWHC 1575 (Ch) .
2. High Court (Chancery Appeals): Allowed Ocorian’s appeal against the County Court decisions and defeated McGeoch’s defences.
3. County Court at Southampton: HHJ Glen refused Ocorian’s strike-out and summary judgment applications and allowed McGeoch’s application to amend her defence and introduce a counterclaim. The decisions were dated 23 February 2026.