Anne Alexander Hotels v Blake-Coulter & Ors [2016] EWHC 1457 (QB) ()

Anne Alexander Hotels v Blake-Coulter & Ors [2016] EWHC 1457 (QB) ()

The lower court erred by applying a sequential approach to CPR 39.3(5) and failing to consider the merits of the defence and the overriding objective. The defendants had a good reason for non-attendance, as they were not aware of the trial date due to understandable confusion and communication failures. The three conditions of CPR 39.3(5) were satisfied, and the order should be set aside to allow a trial on the merits.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1457 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Anne Alexander Hotels; Defendant: Anne Blake-Coulter; Defendant: Alex Coulter; Defendants: Other Defendants (Ors)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil (property Possession and Damages) / Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Judgment in Absence Under CPR 39.3(3)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 27 July 2015 set aside; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3, Possession Proceedings, Nature of Lease Vs Licence, Litigation Friend for Minors, Forfeiture and Section 146 LPA 1925, Overriding Objective and Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Property Law Setting Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3 Possession Proceedings Nature of Lease Vs Licence Litigation Friend for Minors Forfeiture and Section 146 LPA 1925 Overriding Objective and Article 6 ECHR

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anne Alexander Hotels

Claimant

Anne Blake-Coulter

Defendant

Alex Coulter

Defendant

Other Defendants (Ors)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil (property Possession and Damages) / Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Judgment in Absence Under CPR 39.3(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants had a good reason for not attending the trial under CPR 39.3(5)
  2. 2 Whether the LTSA was a lease or a licence
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a litigation friend invalidated the order against the minor defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The lower court erred by applying a sequential approach to CPR 39.3(5) and failing to consider the merits of the defence and the overriding objective. The defendants had a good reason for non-attendance, as they were not aware of the trial date due to understandable confusion and communication failures. The three conditions of CPR 39.3(5) were satisfied, and the order should be set aside to allow a trial on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 27 July 2015 set aside; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Order of 27 July 2015 set aside as against all defendants.
  • No order made against Alex Coulter due to absence of litigation friend.