TFS Stores Ltd v The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Ltd & Ors
The automatic stay imposed by PD 51Z and the 2020 Rules applies to both appeals because the proceedings, by virtue of counterclaims and consent orders for possession, became proceedings for possession brought under CPR Part 55. The stay is blanket in nature and cannot be circumvented by technical distinctions between claims and counterclaims or by the form of pleadings. The hearing of the appeal is vacated and can only proceed after the stay ends or if the parties agree under the exceptions in PD 51Z.
- Parties
- Appellant/tenant/claimant/defendant: TFS Stores Limited; Respondent/landlord/defendant/claimant: The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Limited; Respondent/landlord/defendant: British Overseas Bank Nominees Limited; Respondent/landlord/defendant: WGTC Nominees Limited; Respondent/landlord/claimant: BMG (Ashford) Limited; Respondent/landlord/claimant: UK OM (LP2) (GP) Limited; Respondent/landlord/claimant: UK OM (LP2) Limited; Respondent/landlord/claimant: The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (York) General Partner Limited; Respondent/landlord/claimant: UK OM (LP3) (GP) Limited; Respondent/landlord/claimant: UK (OM) (LP3) Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 July 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Application to Vacate Hearing Due to Automatic Stay Under PD 51 Z and 2020 Rules
- Outcome
- Appeal hearing vacated due to automatic stay under PD 51Z and the 2020 Rules.
- Legal Topics
- Automatic Stay of Possession Proceedings, Practice Direction 51 Z, CPR Part 55, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Possession Orders, Covid 19 Emergency Court Rules
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
TFS Stores Limited
Appellant/tenant/claimant/defendant
The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Limited
Respondent/landlord/defendant/claimant
British Overseas Bank Nominees Limited
Respondent/landlord/defendant
WGTC Nominees Limited
Respondent/landlord/defendant
BMG (Ashford) Limited
Respondent/landlord/claimant
UK OM (LP2) (GP) Limited
Respondent/landlord/claimant
UK OM (LP2) Limited
Respondent/landlord/claimant
The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (York) General Partner Limited
Respondent/landlord/claimant
UK OM (LP3) (GP) Limited
Respondent/landlord/claimant
UK (OM) (LP3) Limited
Respondent/landlord/claimant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Application to Vacate Hearing Due to Automatic Stay Under PD 51 Z and 2020 Rules
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the automatic stay imposed by Practice Direction 51Z apply to these appeals?
- 2 If the stay applies only to part of the appeals, should the hearing proceed?
- 3 Should the stay be lifted in whole or in part?
Ratio Decidendi
The automatic stay imposed by PD 51Z and the 2020 Rules applies to both appeals because the proceedings, by virtue of counterclaims and consent orders for possession, became proceedings for possession brought under CPR Part 55. The stay is blanket in nature and cannot be circumvented by technical distinctions between claims and counterclaims or by the form of pleadings. The hearing of the appeal is vacated and can only proceed after the stay ends or if the parties agree under the exceptions in PD 51Z.
Court Disposition
Appeal hearing vacated due to automatic stay under PD 51Z and the 2020 Rules.
Orders
- Hearing of the appeal is vacated.
- Appeal may be re-listed after the stay ends or by agreement under PD 51Z paragraph 2A(c).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment