Thomas v Smalling [2020] EWHC 3186 (Ch) (24 November 2020)

Thomas v Smalling [2020] EWHC 3186 (Ch) (24 November 2020)

The judge was entitled to refuse relief from sanctions as the breaches were serious and significant, with no good reason, and granting relief would have required an adjournment of an urgent trial. The tenancy agreement and gifted deposit declaration were not shams but reflected the parties' true agreement. The defendant did not acquire a beneficial interest in the property; her right was contractual, not proprietary. The judge's findings were open to him on the evidence and there was no real prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3186 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Delsie Thomas; Respondent: Daphne Veronica Smalling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Beneficial Interest in Property, Sham Documents, Possession Proceedings
Property Law Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Assured Shorthold Tenancy Beneficial Interest in Property Sham Documents Possession Proceedings

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delsie Thomas

Appellant

Daphne Veronica Smalling

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal And, If Granted, Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing relief from sanctions for failure to comply with case management directions
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in finding the tenancy agreement and gifted deposit declaration were not shams
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had a beneficial interest in the property

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse relief from sanctions as the breaches were serious and significant, with no good reason, and granting relief would have required an adjournment of an urgent trial. The tenancy agreement and gifted deposit declaration were not shams but reflected the parties' true agreement. The defendant did not acquire a beneficial interest in the property; her right was contractual, not proprietary. The judge's findings were open to him on the evidence and there was no real prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Appeal dismissed