Grimason v Cates [2013] EWHC 2304 (QB) (26 July 2013)

Grimason v Cates [2013] EWHC 2304 (QB) (26 July 2013)

Service of proceedings was valid at the flat address as appellant instructed service there and gave it as address for Land Registry; appellant did not act promptly to seek relief from forfeiture; no reasonable prospect of success; proportionality argument rejected as statutory protections were adequate.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2304
Parties
Claimant & Appellant / Defendant & Appellant: Grace Winifred Grimason; Defendant & Respondent / Claimant & Respondent: Jonathan Cates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Orders Striking Out Claim and Refusing to Set Aside Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Service of Proceedings, Relief From Forfeiture, Proportionality, Ground Rent Arrears, Possession Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Forfeiture of Lease Service of Proceedings Relief From Forfeiture Proportionality Ground Rent Arrears +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Winifred Grimason

Claimant & Appellant / Defendant & Appellant

Jonathan Cates

Defendant & Respondent / Claimant & Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Orders Striking Out Claim and Refusing to Set Aside Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of forfeiture proceedings was valid under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether the possession order should be set aside for lack of service
  3. 3 Whether relief from forfeiture was available

Ratio Decidendi

Service of proceedings was valid at the flat address as appellant instructed service there and gave it as address for Land Registry; appellant did not act promptly to seek relief from forfeiture; no reasonable prospect of success; proportionality argument rejected as statutory protections were adequate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs in the sum of £4,212.60 inclusive of VAT