Janet d’Sa v Hammersmith and Fulham Council

A High Court cannot be used as a substitute for the county court’s appellate or procedural jurisdiction over a possession order. An appeal from a district judge’s possession order lies first to a circuit judge in the county court. An application to set aside an order made in a party’s absence belongs first in the court that made it, and an application concerning an eviction warrant should initially be made to the issuing court. The High Court retains a residual supervisory jurisdiction by judicial review over public authorities, including a county court, but that jurisdiction is tightly constrained. It does not permit the Administrative Court to rehear the appeal, determine the set-aside application, or take over an application concerning the warrant.

The applicant sought urgent relief from the High Court concerning a possession order made in her absence by Wandsworth County Court on 25 March 2026 and an eviction warrant scheduling eviction for 11 August 2026. She asked the High Court to stay the eviction and to process an unissued Form N161 appeal against the possession order. She also relied on her alleged inability to attend, alleged failures to process earlier papers, and objections to the mode of service of the eviction notice. The central issue was whether the High Court could grant the requested relief or assume the county court’s appellate and procedural functions.

The High Court declined to stay the eviction or to process and hear the applicant’s Form N161 appeal. The N244 application was adjourned and transferred to the Administrative Court to continue as judicial review proceedings. Those proceedings were stayed with liberty to apply, and the applicant was given liberty to lodge an urgent Form N463 application for a stay to be considered on the papers.

1. Proper appellate forum. An appeal from a district judge’s possession order lies first to a circuit judge in the county court. The circuit judge has jurisdiction to decide permission to appeal, and a substantive county-court appeal may then proceed. The High Court was not persuaded that it had jurisdiction to assume the role of the circuit judge.
2. Applications concerning the order and warrant. Any application to set aside a decision made in the applicant’s absence should be made to the court that made the decision. An application arising from a Form N54 notice of eviction should, at least initially, be made to the court that issued it. The notice itself made that position clear.
3. Residual judicial review. The Local Authority and Wandsworth County Court were public authorities amenable to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. In tightly constrained circumstances, judicial review may examine how county-court proceedings were handled within the framework of appeal rights. It does not, however, allow the High Court to hear the appeal, determine the application to set aside the possession order, or determine the application arising from the eviction notice. The judge referred to R (Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132 as a reference concerning that constraint.
4. The applicant was encouraged to make an urgent application to Wandsworth County Court to set aside the possession order, list the appeal, and/or stay the eviction, supported by relevant contemporaneous documents. The High Court made no findings on the disputed facts because the documentary picture was incomplete and the Local Authority and county court might have material evidence to provide.

This was a first-instance urgent application. The judgment records a possession order made by Wandsworth County Court and attempted but unissued Forms N161 and N244. No prior appellate decision is cited.