London Borough of Ealing v Richardson [2005] EWCA Civ 1798 (22 November 2005)

London Borough of Ealing v Richardson [2005] EWCA Civ 1798 (22 November 2005)

The circuit judge erred in ordering a re-hearing under CPR 52.11(1)(b) as there was no injustice or exceptional circumstance; the District Judge's exercise of discretion to suspend the warrant was within the proper ambit and should be restored.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1798
Parties
Claimant/respondent: London Borough of Ealing; Defendant/appellant: Diane Richardson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appeals Procedure, Suspension of Possession Warrants, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Re Hearing Vs Review, Housing Act 1985 Section 85
Civil Procedure Housing Law Appeals Procedure Suspension of Possession Warrants Exercise of Judicial Discretion Re Hearing Vs Review Housing Act 1985 Section 85

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Ealing

Claimant/respondent

Diane Richardson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to Court of Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the circuit judge erred in ordering a re-hearing rather than a review under CPR 52.11(1)
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge's exercise of discretion to suspend the warrant was wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The circuit judge erred in ordering a re-hearing under CPR 52.11(1)(b) as there was no injustice or exceptional circumstance; the District Judge's exercise of discretion to suspend the warrant was within the proper ambit and should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the District Judge restored
  • Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal