Helena Housing Ltd v Pinder

J U D G M E N T

1. LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: There are two appeals. The first Helena Housing v Pinder and the other is Lambeth and Hyde Bank v O'Kane. In both cases this court dismisses the appeal, for reasons which have been communicated to the parties in writing. The parties have communicated certain corrections, for which the court is very grateful. Unfortunately it has not been possible to produce a final copy of the judgment for this hearing this morning. Therefore, it will be available for the press at 1.00 o'clock tomorrow in this court in its final form.

2. The order in the case of Helena is agreed and has been signed by counsel. An application was made for permission to appeal on paper, which this court has considered and which this court refuses, as it does not consider that the Helena case is one of the exceptional cases for which this court should grant permission.

3. In the case of Mr O'Kane, there is also an application for permission to appeal on different grounds. This court has also considered that application on paper, and for the like reason declines permission.

4. There is an application this morning by Mr Latham for a stay. This application is made otherwise than on notice and on the written submissions which could be considered by all the members of the court in the usual way. Instead, the parties have agreed that I should deal with it without this matter having to be adjourned to seek a reconstitution with all the members of the court. I would add that there is also no evidence in support of the application.

5. Mr Latham says there is no discretion in this case in the county court to grant a suspension of any warrant for possession. Mr Latham submits that if he succeeded in the House of Lords, Mr O'Kane would have an overriding interest and could in any event claim a right to the property which he is currently occupying and to which he claims succession rights. He seeks three months in which to present the petition for public funding reasons, but is prepared to give an undertaking to pursue it diligently thereafter.

6. As to the importance of this particular property, Mr Latham submits that his client has a liver complaint and that in his present position he has the support of his neighbours. He is not, however, housebound. Mr Latham also makes the point that if he is in priority need, one response of Lambeth could be to offer him a nomination to a property run by Hyde Bank, the assignee of its housing stock.

7. For Hyde Bank, Mr Watkins submits that his clients have succeeded both here and in the county court and that if there was no stay but Mr O'Kane succeeded in the House of Lords, he would be offered a comparable tenancy. Mr Watkin also makes the point that Mr O'Kane is in priority need. He has not yet made an application to Lambeth, according to Mr Watkin, but the obligation would fall on Lambeth and not on Hyde. I should say in fairness to Mr Watkin that he has not been able to deal with the overriding interest argument because no authority for that has been produced and it was only argued in reply.

8. In my judgment, the right course is to refuse a stay. As Mr Watkin points out, the landlord has succeeded both here and in the county court. In my judgment, Mr O'Kane is not sufficiently prejudiced by the refusal of the stay because of his protection under Part VI and the fact that he would be offered a comparable tenancy if ultimately successful. So far as the overriding interest point is concerned, as I have said I have not been taken to any authority on this. No doubt, if this is a point which if Mr Watkin considered it to be a good point he would give appropriate advice to his clients.

9. In the circumstances, however, I do not consider that it would be justified for me to grant a stay in the O'Kane case.

ORDER: Application for a stay pending an application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

(Order not part of approved judgment)