Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620 (11 May 2020)

Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620 (11 May 2020)

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

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 620
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
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court at Central London
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save as to paragraph 4 of the judge's order.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Practice Direction 51 Z, Covid 19 Pandemic, Judicial Review, Access to Justice, Court Management Powers, Mortgage Enforcement
Civil Procedure Property Law Human Rights Possession Proceedings Practice Direction 51 Z Covid 19 Pandemic Judicial Review Access to Justice +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 4 Authorities cited 20 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

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court at Central London

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Practice Direction 51Z was made ultra vires
  2. 2 Whether PD 51Z applies to all possession proceedings including those with agreed 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 under CPR 51.2, is not inconsistent with the Coronavirus Act 2020 or Article 6 ECHR, applies to all possession proceedings including those with agreed directions, and while the court retains a theoretical power to lift the stay, it should only be exercised in the most exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save as to paragraph 4 of the judge's order.

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the judge's order making postponed directions is deleted insofar as it cannot now be agreed.