Circle 33 Housing Trust Ltd. v Ellis [2005] EWCA Civ 1233 (23 September 2005)

Circle 33 Housing Trust Ltd. v Ellis [2005] EWCA Civ 1233 (23 September 2005)

The landlord was not guilty of oppression or abuse of process in executing the warrant of possession because it had made reasonable efforts to liaise with the housing department, and the tenant's lack of cooperation was the determinative factor. There was no causative link between any alleged failure by the landlord and the eviction, as the housing department would not have restored benefit without the tenant's participation. Therefore, the County Court and High Court were wrong to set aside the eviction and order reinstatement.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1233
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Circle 33 Housing Trust Limited; Defendant/respondent: Desmond Ellis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Holland J set aside; application for re-entry dismissed.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Assured Tenancy, Housing Benefit, Eviction, Abuse of Process, Oppression, Suspension of Warrant, Reinstatement After Eviction
Housing Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Assured Tenancy Housing Benefit Eviction Abuse of Process Oppression +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Circle 33 Housing Trust Limited

Claimant/applicant

Desmond Ellis

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the warrant of possession was oppressive or an abuse of process justifying reinstatement after eviction
  2. 2 Whether the landlord was required to make further enquiries with the housing department before seeking enforcement of the possession order

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord was not guilty of oppression or abuse of process in executing the warrant of possession because it had made reasonable efforts to liaise with the housing department, and the tenant's lack of cooperation was the determinative factor. There was no causative link between any alleged failure by the landlord and the eviction, as the housing department would not have restored benefit without the tenant's participation. Therefore, the County Court and High Court were wrong to set aside the eviction and order reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Holland J set aside; application for re-entry dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of Holland J of 28th July set aside.
  • Application of respondent for re-entry dismissed.