Arkin v Marshall

Arkin v Marshall

PD 51Z was validly made as a pilot scheme under CPR 51.2, is not inconsistent with the Coronavirus Act 2020 or Article 6 ECHR, applies to all relevant possession proceedings including those with existing case management directions, and the court retains only a theoretical power to lift the stay, which should not be exercised except in the most exceptional circumstances.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mehmet Arkin (as Fixed Charge Receiver of Lodge Farm); Defendant/respondent: Gary Ronald Marshall; Interested Party: The Lord Chancellor; Intervener: Housing Law Practitioners Association; Claimant/appellant: Gary Ronald Marshall (acting by Mehmet Arkin as Fixed Charge Receiver of the Cottage and the Barn); Defendant/respondent: Mr Brett Marshall; Defendant/respondent: Kim Beverley Marshall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save as to paragraph 4 of the judge's order, which is deleted unless now agreed.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Practice Directions, Judicial Review, Access to Justice, Coronavirus Emergency Measures
Civil Procedure Property Law Public Law Possession Proceedings Practice Directions Judicial Review Access to Justice Coronavirus Emergency Measures

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mehmet Arkin (as Fixed Charge Receiver of Lodge Farm)

Claimant/appellant

Gary Ronald Marshall

Defendant/respondent

The Lord Chancellor

Interested Party

Housing Law Practitioners Association

Intervener

Gary Ronald Marshall (acting by Mehmet Arkin as Fixed Charge Receiver of the Cottage and the Barn)

Claimant/appellant

Mr Brett Marshall

Defendant/respondent

Kim Beverley Marshall

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Practice Direction 51Z was made ultra vires
  2. 2 Whether PD 51Z applies to all Part 55 proceedings including those with case management directions
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to lift the stay imposed by PD 51Z

Ratio Decidendi

PD 51Z was validly made as a pilot scheme under CPR 51.2, is not inconsistent with the Coronavirus Act 2020 or Article 6 ECHR, applies to all relevant possession proceedings including those with existing case management directions, and the court retains only a theoretical power to lift the stay, which should not be exercised except in the most exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save as to paragraph 4 of the judge's order, which is deleted unless now agreed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Paragraph 4 of the judge's order making postponed directions is deleted unless now agreed