Cheval Bridging Finance Ltd v Bhasin & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 598 (11 April 2008)

Cheval Bridging Finance Ltd v Bhasin & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 598 (11 April 2008)

The judge's refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion on the evidence before him; there was no procedural unfairness or error in principle. However, two arguable points arise: whether the judge had power under CPR 3 to adjourn, and whether Mrs Bhasin was a 'mortgagor' for section 36 purposes. Permission to appeal is granted on these two points only.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 598
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Cheval Bridging Finance Limited; Appellant/defendant: Bhasin and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (possession Order) / Permission to Appeal Application; Adjourned for Full Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on two specified questions; appeal adjourned for full hearing.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Adjournment of Proceedings, Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970, Case Management Powers Under CPR 3
Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Possession Adjournment of Proceedings Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970 Case Management Powers Under CPR 3

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheval Bridging Finance Limited

Respondent/claimant

Bhasin and Others

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (possession Order) / Permission to Appeal Application; Adjourned for Full Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment to allow an application under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether the judge had power under CPR 3 to adjourn the hearing to await the outcome of related proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Mrs Bhasin was a 'mortgagor' for the purposes of section 36 and the court's jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion on the evidence before him; there was no procedural unfairness or error in principle. However, two arguable points arise: whether the judge had power under CPR 3 to adjourn, and whether Mrs Bhasin was a 'mortgagor' for section 36 purposes. Permission to appeal is granted on these two points only.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on two specified questions; appeal adjourned for full hearing.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on (1) CPR 3 case management power to adjourn and (2) whether Mrs Bhasin is a 'mortgagor' under section 36.
  • Appeal adjourned to be heard by a full court with a Chancery Lord or Lady Justice.