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

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

Service of the forfeiture proceedings was validly effected at the flat, which was the appellant's usual or last known residence as evidenced by her instructions and registration; appellant did not act promptly or have reasonable prospects of success for relief from forfeiture; proportionality concerns do not override statutory provisions in absence of compelling circumstances.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2304 (QB)
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 / Appeal From Hastings County Court Orders Dated 14 February 2013
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Service of Proceedings, Relief From Forfeiture, Proportionality, Ground Rent Arrears, Unjust Enrichment
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 5 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 / Appeal From Hastings County Court Orders Dated 14 February 2013

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 failure of service
  3. 3 Whether relief from forfeiture was available

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the forfeiture proceedings was validly effected at the flat, which was the appellant's usual or last known residence as evidenced by her instructions and registration; appellant did not act promptly or have reasonable prospects of success for relief from forfeiture; proportionality concerns do not override statutory provisions in absence of compelling circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

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