BREAKING: Challenge to government’s evictions ban fails in Court of Appeal
Three judges dismiss attempt to restart repossessions within the court system which, via several technical points, had argued that the ban was illegal on procedural grounds.
A judgement from the Court of Appeal today has dismissed a challenge to the government’s ‘evictions ban’ in the courts, confirming that the measure is lawful.
Many landlords trapped by the estimated 20,000 repossession cases stuck in the courts since the suspension of repossession cases in the courts were pinning their hopes on the Court of Appeal case going in their favour.
But the three judges involved have handed down a judgement on Arkin vs Marshall which tackled the government’s Practice Direction 51Z, which officially suspended possession cases within the courts system.
This was one of the government’s two central mechanisms to introduce an ‘evictions ban’. It will last at least until late June, and possibly beyond to October if required.
“The outcome is that PD51Z is lawful, applies through possession proceedings and in all but the most exception cases – the court found it hard to envisage examples – should not be lifted,” says Julie Ford of Hemel Hempstead Property Network.
“The was an interesting challenge of the practice directive and had the outcome been different, this could been an immediate game changer for pending possession cases.
“I believe the court of appeal has made the right decision in this case.”
Technical points
The judges were asked to look at several technical and procedural points including whether judges can interfere in suspensions or ‘stays’ of Practice Directions such as PD51Z, but this was kicked into the long grass as a Judicial Review on this point must now follow.
“Although not favourable to those needing possession of their property back before the end of the current suspension of possession claims I feel this judgement is very sensible and provides some certainty on the current position,” says Tim Frome, Legal Director of Landlord Action.
“The Civil Courts are not the right place to deal with a challenge to a government acting ultra vires or ‘outside of their authority’.
“This needs to be done by Judicial Review. The change to the practice direction, allowing agreed case management directions, dealt with one of the main issues in the case being heard.
“I also agree with the final point in the judgement. Judges do always having case management powers, however in the current public health circumstance there would need to be the most exceptional circumstances for a judge to agree to lift the stay so, in short, parties should not bother trying.
“It will be very interesting to see whether the government decides to extend the current three month stay which is due to end around 25th June. We have estimated that there are over 20,000 cases currently waiting in the county courts and more are being issued every day.
“Any further stay will put huge pressure on the system in the future.”
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – BREAKING: Challenge to government’s evictions ban fails in Court of Appeal | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: BREAKING: Challenge to government’s evictions ban fails in Court of Appeal
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’