Hamid-Zadeh v Revens & Ors

J U D G M E N T

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is an application by the appellant that I should reconsider an order of Master Venne made on about 29th May to adjourn the hearing of her application for permission to appeal, which is due to be heard before this court next Thursday.

2. The matter has a very long history. Most recently, a notice of appeal was lodged in this court on 9th December 2002 against part of an order of Bell J dated 25th November 2002. Except in so far as Bell J made an order for costs or some other order which did not relate to the appeal, any appeal to this court would be a second appeal which would have to meet the much tougher rules for second appeals prescribed by Parliament in the Access to Justice Act.

3. To put the matter shortly, the present claimant was evicted from her flat in 14 Howitt Road, NW3 on 15th February 2000. She has shown me a notice dated 31st August 1999 warning her that a warrant had been issued for possession of the property at this address, and giving her notice to vacate the premises before a date at that time fixed for the following September. It warned her the bailiffs and agents for the claimant would take possession without any further notice, and any goods found on the premises at the time of possession might be seized and sold by public auction on the instructions of a District Judge.

4. The eviction in fact took place on 15th February. Shortly afterwards, the claimant applied for an order allowing her access to the flat so that she could collect her possessions. A District Judge granted such an order, but her order was subsequently set aside by a different District Judge. Miss Hamid-Zadeh is upset about the course of events which happened at that time.

5. Unfortunately, she did not appeal within the 14 days prescribed by the rules to a Circuit Judge in the County Court. She appears to have sought relief in the High Court in judicial review proceedings. However that may be, she got no relief in that way and she started High Court proceedings against four respondents on 13th July 2001, claiming relief in a large variety of causes of action. In her claim, which is set out in essence in paragraph 4 of her particulars of claim, she said she was an assured sitting tenant and that she was ordered to give up possession of the flat in 1998 by order of the County Court. She was evicted after 10 years and the reason was that the four defendants to her claim had conspired together to evict her. Their lies and unfounded allegations had played a major role in misleading the judge and made him use his discretion improperly to evict the claimant. They all have motivations to gain profit from this action.

6. An application was made, at any rate by two of the defendants, to strike out the claim, alternatively, for summary judgment on the basis that there was no real prospect of success. On 8th April Master Eyre struck out the whole claim.

7. In due course Nelson J granted the claimant permission to appeal in respect of all the defendants in respect of two of her claims only, her claim for the return of the money paid for repairs and payment for goods thrown away. He took the view that her case was in essence an attempt to re-litigate the County Court proceedings which he thought was doomed to failure, but he was concerned that Master Eyre had not sufficiently dealt with two particular matters.

8. The appeal came before Bell J a good deal later on 25th November 2002. Miss Hamid-Zadeh has complained to me today that she was in a state of personal distress at the time of the hearing before Bell J, in circumstances she has described to me, and she asked Bell J for an adjournment which he refused. She is upset because the agent's lawyers put a bundle before Bell J which contained documents she felt ought not to have been in the bundle. She accepted that she had not lodged a bundle and that she had not lodged evidence herself. I pointed out to her it was difficult under the current rules to lodge further evidence at the time of an appeal.

9. However that may be, Bell J, in a judgment which has been fully transcribed, decided that it was appropriate to reinstate the claimant's claim against her landlady on the basis that it would be wrong to say that there was absolutely no prospect of either the two heads of claim allowed by Nelson J for the appeal succeeding against her, but the other claims remained struck out.

10. So far as Mr Revens was concerned, the first defendant, he was not the landlord's agent at the time, so there was no reason to make him liable for repair costs. Bell J was unpersuaded that he, whether by himself or in any other capacity, was responsible for the disappearance of any property from her flat. Miss Hamid-Zadeh is emphatic that the judge misunderstood the evidence and that this was wrong and she seeks to appeal that.

11. Bell J also held it was difficult to see on the evidence provided or that which could be inferred how Mr McKenzie, who was the second defendant, could be liable. He was somebody who had been Miss Hamid-Zadeh's lawyer at one time, and was then acting for her landlady, Miss Morgan, who was in the United States. Similarly, he could not see on the evidence which was before him how she had any claim for the repairs or the lost possessions against Miss Conway, who as I understand it was occupying another flat in the premises.

12. That was the order of Bell J. A notice of appeal was lodged on 9th December 2002, so that Miss Hamid-Zadeh had ample time to prepare whatever documents she sought to prepare for her appeal to this court. She is anxious to receive a transcript of the proceedings before Bell J because she wishes to rely on that as showing that she was not treated fairly before Bell J. A decision was taken to refuse to allow the taxpayer to pay for that. She tells me that she borrowed the money three weeks ago to order a transcript which has not yet been delivered. She is now applying for an adjournment, partly because she wishes to have the transcript of the hearing before Bell J. She is also distressed that only part of the judgment of Master Eyre has been transcribed. She also wants to have an opportunity, once she gets a transcript, to consult a lawyer about the transcript.

13. I should have added that at the end of the hearing before Bell J the agent's lawyers applied for summary assessment of their costs, which Bell J assessed at the sum of £5,000. Miss Hamid-Zadeh complains that there should not have been a summary assessment because the bill of costs had not been filed 24 hours before the hearing in accordance with the rules.

14. She now seeks an adjournment of the hearing of her application for permission to appeal which is to be listed next Thursday. I take the same view as Master Venne. It is far too late to have the matter delayed still further for the reasons that she has given me. She should have got the papers in order and the transcript ordered a very long time ago if she wished to rely on it for the hearing of the appeal. She seems to have delayed a long time before enquiring whether the taxpayer would be willing to pay for it, and her order for the transcript was only made recently.

15. In the circumstances, it appears to me that the best thing to do is to leave the matter in the list for Thursday. I have asked the Associate to make enquiries to request whether as a matter of urgency, if the transcript has indeed been ordered, it could be delivered so that the court can see it at the hearing on Thursday. The matter should be then considered by the judge who conducts the hearing on Thursday.

16. Miss Hamid-Zadeh also seeks a three-judge court for the hearing on Thursday. If her application has any merit, then it will be for the judge who allows it to go forward to decide whether the substantive appeal should be heard by a two-judge court or a three-judge court. But it is the practice of this court not to have the full court for hearing these applications for permission to appeal. So I am not willing to make any order in that respect in relation to the application for permission.

17. That is the order I make. The matter will stay in the list for next Thursday.

ORDER: Application for an adjournment refused.

(Order not part of approved judgment)