Cheval Bridging Finance Ltd v Bhasin & Ors

Cheval Bridging Finance Ltd v Bhasin & Ors

The judge's refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion on the evidence before him; there was no real prospect of success in challenging his decision under section 36. However, two arguable points were identified: whether the judge had power under CPR 3 to adjourn, and whether Mrs Bhasin was a 'mortgagor' for section 36 purposes. Permission to appeal was granted on these two points.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Cheval Bridging Finance Limited; Appellant/defendant: Bhasin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application; Appeal Adjourned for Full Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on two points; appeal adjourned for full hearing; stay of possession granted; costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Adjournment, Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970, Case Management Under CPR 3, Mortgagor Status
Civil Procedure Property Law Mortgage Law Possession Proceedings Adjournment Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970 Case Management Under CPR 3 Mortgagor Status

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheval Bridging Finance Limited

Respondent/claimant

Bhasin

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application; Appeal Adjourned for Full Hearing

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 to adjourn

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion on the evidence before him; there was no real prospect of success in challenging his decision under section 36. However, two arguable points were identified: whether the judge had power under CPR 3 to adjourn, and whether Mrs Bhasin was a 'mortgagor' for section 36 purposes. Permission to appeal was granted on these two points.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on two points; appeal adjourned for full hearing; stay of possession granted; costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on two limited points (CPR 3 power to adjourn; mortgagor status under section 36)
  • Appeal adjourned for hearing by a full court