Paul Harforth v Rose Island Properties

When a party seeks a paper determination but may wish to request an oral hearing if the result is adverse, the court may require a clear statement about waiver. If the party will not waive that right, insisting on both procedures may be inconsistent with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The court may therefore fix an oral hearing while allowing prompt arrangements and relevant evidence. Linked questions about varying directions, continuing an interim stay and granting permission to appeal may be managed together where they overlap. A procedural hearing of this kind does not determine the underlying appeal or the merits of the stay.

The appellant challenged decisions made by HHJ Duddridge in the Southend County Court concerning a residential possession order based on rent arrears. He sought to advance a counterclaim and equitable set-off concerning the property's condition, but those arguments lacked expert evidence. The High Court appeal was filed on 24 March 2026. Eady J imposed an interim stay on 27 March, and later orders addressed whether the stay should continue and whether the matter should be determined on paper.

At this hearing the appellant was absent and sought a paper process. The immediate questions were whether to vary Turner J's order, whether to continue the stay, and whether to grant permission to appeal. The court had to decide the appropriate procedure, not the merits.

Disposition. Fordham J made procedural directions and reserved all substantive questions. The appellant was given until 4pm on 7 August 2026 to confirm whether he waived any right to request an oral hearing concerning: (i) variation of Turner J's order; (ii) continuation of Eady J's interim stay; and (iii) permission to appeal. If he waived that right on all three matters, the questions would be determined on paper in the week commencing 24 August. Otherwise, a half-day hybrid oral hearing would be listed for 25–28 August. Costs were reserved.

1. The court recorded that the appellant had invoked CPR 3.3(7) in seeking to vary an order made without a hearing. His July request sought paper determination and expressly waived an oral hearing, while earlier appeal documents contemplated a renewed oral hearing if permission were refused on paper. The court therefore required clarity about whether the waiver was unconditional ([7], [13]–[14]).
2. A request for paper determination coupled with a reserved entitlement to seek an oral hearing if the paper decision were adverse was, in the circumstances, inconsistent with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. In the absence of a clear waiver, the appropriate course was to fix an oral hearing, with prompt listing and an opportunity to provide relevant representations and medical evidence ([16]–[17]).
3. The continuation of the interim stay substantially overlapped with the viability of the appeal and permission to appeal. It was therefore sensible to manage those questions together, while recognising that a distinct issue concerning the value of any counterclaim or set-off might affect arrears without answering the possession issue ([9]–[10]).
4. No substantive issue was decided. The respondent did not seek a merits determination in the appellant's absence, no substantive argument was heard, and the court expressed no view on variation, continuation of the stay or permission to appeal. The order ensured that those matters would be determined in the week commencing 24 August 2026 ([19]–[21]).

1. High Court (King's Bench Division): The appeal was filed on 24 March 2026. Eady J imposed an interim stay on 27 March; Cotter J directed paper determination on 22 April; and Turner J varied those directions on 26 June. In this ruling, Fordham J made further procedural directions and did not determine the merits or permission to appeal: [2026] EWHC 2037 (KB) .
2. Southend County Court: A possession order was made at trial on 21 January 2026. On 12 March 2026 HHJ Duddridge refused a further opportunity to advance the counterclaim and equitable set-off arguments and refused to set aside or stay the possession order.