Manchester City Council v Finn [2002] EWCA Civ 1998 (19 December 2002)

Manchester City Council v Finn [2002] EWCA Civ 1998 (19 December 2002)

The court has jurisdiction under section 85(2) of the Housing Act 1985 to vary or revoke a suspended possession order at any time before execution, even if the tenant is complying with its terms, and may consider new grounds for possession within the same proceedings without requiring fresh proceedings.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1998
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Manchester City Council; Defendant/appellant: Joleen Finn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancies, Possession Orders, Variation of Court Orders, Jurisdiction of Court, Postponement of Possession, Functus Officio, Statutory Interpretation
Housing Law Civil Procedure Secure Tenancies Possession Orders Variation of Court Orders Jurisdiction of Court Postponement of Possession Functus Officio +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manchester City Council

Claimant/respondent

Joleen Finn

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to vary or revoke a suspended possession order under section 85(2) of the Housing Act 1985 while the order is still running and the tenant is complying with its terms.
  2. 2 Whether new grounds for possession can be considered within existing proceedings or require fresh proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction under section 85(2) of the Housing Act 1985 to vary or revoke a suspended possession order at any time before execution, even if the tenant is complying with its terms, and may consider new grounds for possession within the same proceedings without requiring fresh proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to District Judge Needham for decision
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs (assessment adjourned to costs judge)