De Grey & Anor v Ford & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1223 (30 September 2005)

De Grey & Anor v Ford & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1223 (30 September 2005)

The Fords were in continuing and deliberate breach of a valid possession order, having been given every opportunity to comply. The committal order, suspended to allow compliance, was justified as a last resort. No breach of human rights or procedural unfairness was established, and no new evidence justified reopening the possession proceedings.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1223
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Spencer De Grey; Claimant/respondent: Amanda De Grey; Defendant/appellant: Daniel Ford; Defendant/appellant: Luibov Ford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Committal Order for Contempt Following Possession Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Possession Orders, Adverse Possession, Human Rights (echr), Self Represented Litigants
Civil Procedure Property Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Possession Orders Adverse Possession Human Rights (echr) Self Represented Litigants

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spencer De Grey

Claimant/respondent

Amanda De Grey

Claimant/respondent

Daniel Ford

Defendant/appellant

Luibov Ford

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Committal Order for Contempt Following Possession Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal order for contempt was justified and lawful
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' human rights under the European Convention were breached
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justified reopening the possession proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Fords were in continuing and deliberate breach of a valid possession order, having been given every opportunity to comply. The committal order, suspended to allow compliance, was justified as a last resort. No breach of human rights or procedural unfairness was established, and no new evidence justified reopening the possession proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded against appellants in the sum of £5,164.13