Sangha v Amicus Finance Plc [2020] EWHC 1074 (Ch) (05 May 2020)

Sangha v Amicus Finance Plc [2020] EWHC 1074 (Ch) (05 May 2020)

The possession order was a final order. The circumstances for setting aside such an order under CPR 3.1(7) are extremely rare and were not met here. All facts underlying the alleged misrepresentation defence were known to Mr Sangha at the time of the original hearing. The Deputy District Judge applied the correct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1074 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Peter Singh Sangha; Respondent: Amicus Finance PLC (in administration)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Final Orders, Possession Proceedings, Misrepresentation, CPR 3.1(7), Finality of Judgments
Civil Procedure Property Law Mortgage Law Setting Aside Final Orders Possession Proceedings Misrepresentation CPR 3.1(7) Finality of Judgments

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Peter Singh Sangha

Appellant

Amicus Finance PLC (in administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside a final possession order under CPR 3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether the possession order was a final or interim order
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances were exceptional to justify setting aside the order

Ratio Decidendi

The possession order was a final order. The circumstances for setting aside such an order under CPR 3.1(7) are extremely rare and were not met here. All facts underlying the alleged misrepresentation defence were known to Mr Sangha at the time of the original hearing. The Deputy District Judge applied the correct legal test and exercised her discretion within the permissible ambit. There was no error of law or principle, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order of Deputy District Judge Sharp refusing to set aside possession order affirmed