Wandsworth v Whibley [2008] EWCA Civ 1259 (14 November 2008)

Wandsworth v Whibley [2008] EWCA Civ 1259 (14 November 2008)

Where a tenant raises a potentially tenable defence to alleged breach of a postponed possession order, the court is obliged to give an opportunity for a hearing and cannot summarily fix a date for possession without considering the evidence; the district judge's order for a full hearing was within his discretion and not irrational.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1259
Parties
Appellant/claimant: London Borough of Wandsworth; Respondent/defendant: David Whibley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Directions Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Postponed Possession Orders, Summary Judgment, Anti Social Behaviour, Secure Tenancies
Housing Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Postponed Possession Orders Summary Judgment Anti Social Behaviour Secure Tenancies

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Wandsworth

Appellant/claimant

David Whibley

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Directions Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether county courts should summarily fix a date for possession following breach of a postponed possession order, or whether a full hearing is required when the breach is disputed
  2. 2 Whether the district judge erred in law or acted irrationally in directing a full hearing with disclosure and witness statements

Ratio Decidendi

Where a tenant raises a potentially tenable defence to alleged breach of a postponed possession order, the court is obliged to give an opportunity for a hearing and cannot summarily fix a date for possession without considering the evidence; the district judge's order for a full hearing was within his discretion and not irrational.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • District Judge Gittens' directions for a full hearing with disclosure and witness statements are upheld.
  • Costs in the case.