Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association

Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association

The appeal is dismissed because the statutory scheme under Section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 only permits discharge or rescission of a possession order if the conditions attached to the order have been complied with. The appellant failed to comply with the conditions, and subsequent payment of arrears does not revive the secure tenancy or entitle him to relief under Section 85(4). The court's case management powers under CPR 3.1(2)(a) do not allow retrospective extension of time for compliance with such orders. The recent authorities are not per incuriam, and Article 8 ECHR does not require a different result.

Parties
Appellant: Oslo Porter; Respondent: Shepherds Bush Housing Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Secure Tenancy, Possession Orders, Arrears of Rent, Suspended Possession Orders, Discharge or Rescission of Orders, Case Management Powers, Human Rights (article 8 Echr)
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Secure Tenancy Possession Orders Arrears of Rent Suspended Possession Orders Discharge or Rescission of Orders +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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oslo Porter

Appellant

Shepherds Bush Housing Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can discharge or rescind a possession order under Section 85(4) of the Housing Act 1985 when the tenant has not complied with the conditions attached to the order but has subsequently paid off all arrears
  2. 2 Whether CPR 3.1(2)(a) empowers the court to retrospectively extend time for compliance with the terms of a possession order so as to enable discharge or rescission under Section 85(4)
  3. 3 Whether the recent Court of Appeal authorities are per incuriam in light of Payne v Cooper and CPR 3.1

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the statutory scheme under Section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 only permits discharge or rescission of a possession order if the conditions attached to the order have been complied with. The appellant failed to comply with the conditions, and subsequent payment of arrears does not revive the secure tenancy or entitle him to relief under Section 85(4). The court's case management powers under CPR 3.1(2)(a) do not allow retrospective extension of time for compliance with such orders. The recent authorities are not per incuriam, and Article 8 ECHR does not require a different result.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order for remission; no variation of the possession order.