1) Mrs J v Pritchard and Others v 1) Nathan Teitelbaum and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1063 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 20 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC11C00580 |
[2011] EWHC 1063 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: HC11C00580
Mrs Pritchard appeared in person
Ms Marie-Claire Bleasdale (instructed by Bude Nathan Iwanier) for the 1 st, 5 th & 6 th Defendants
Mr Francis Bacon (instructed by Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert) for the 3 rd Defendant
Mr James Purchas (instructed by Fishburns) for the 4 th Defendant
The Second and Seventh Defendants did not appear and were not represented
Hearing dates: 13 th April 2011
The principal application which is before me is an application by the Claimants for an order requiring some or all of the Defendants to permit the Claimants to enter, or re-enter, into possession of the dwelling house at 1 Garratt Close, Beddington, Surrey, alternatively, for the Claimants to be permitted to protect and/or collect their possessions which are in those premises. The immediate background to this application is that the First and Second Claimants, Mrs Pritchard and her son Mr Carter, were evicted from the premises by the Fifth Defendant, Fineland Investments Limited ("Fineland"), on 1 st April 2011.
The events which led up to the eviction on 1 st April 2011 essentially begin with a transaction entered into between Mrs Pritchard and Fineland on 9 th August 2004. The nature of that transaction was described in detail in a judgment given by Ms Alison Foster QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, on 31 st January 2011, in proceedings brought by Fineland against Mrs Pritchard. Those proceedings were commenced on 29 th June 2006 and I will refer to them as "the 2006 proceedings". The neutral citation of the judgment given on 31 st January 2011 is [2011] EWHC 113 (Ch).
In very brief summary, prior to 9 th August 2004, Mrs Pritchard was a secure tenant of the premises, holding the same from the London Borough of Sutton. She was entitled to, and did, exercise the Right to Buy under the Housing Act 1985. On 9 th August 2004, the London Borough of Sutton transferred the freehold in the premises to Mrs Pritchard at a price discounted in accordance with the 1985 Act. On that date, her secure tenancy of the premises came to an end: see section 139(2) of the 1985 Act. Also on 9 th August 2004, Mrs Pritchard contracted to sell the freehold in the premises to Fineland. The price agreed with Fineland was £20,000 more than the price paid by Mrs Pritchard. To avoid the London Borough of Sutton reclaiming all or part of the discount on the sale to Mrs Pritchard, the contract to sell to Fineland provided for completion at a date just over 3 years thereafter. Also on 9 th August 2004, Mrs Pritchard granted to Fineland a lease of the premises for a term of 20 years. As the term of the lease was only 20 years, this grant did not oblige Mrs Pritchard to pay back to the London Borough of Sutton any part of the discount. Under the formal documents, Mrs Pritchard was obliged to give vacant possession of the premises to Fineland on 9 th August 2004. However, Fineland informally agreed to allow Mrs Pritchard a short time to vacate the property. The Deputy Judge held that this meant that Mrs Pritchard was entitled to remain in the property until 30 th August 2004.
Shortly after 9 th August 2004, Mrs Pritchard sought to resile from the arrangements she had made with Fineland. She declined to vacate the premises. Eventually, Fineland brought the 2006 proceedings to claim possession of the premises and various other heads of relief. Mrs Pritchard filed a defence to those proceedings. Initially, she was represented by solicitors but later in the course of those proceedings she acted in person.
In late 2009, directions were given fixing the date of the trial of the 2006 proceedings so that it would take place in October 2010. On 22 nd September 2010, Mrs Pritchard applied for an adjournment of the trial. That application was heard by Floyd J on 5 th October 2010 and was dismissed.
The trial of the 2006 proceedings duly began on 11 th October 2010. Mrs Pritchard had written to the court just before this date and the Deputy Judge considered her letter as a further application to adjourn the trial. The Deputy Judge considered that application and decided not to adjourn the trial. The trial then proceeded on the 11 th and 12 th October 2010. Fineland was represented by counsel. Mrs Pritchard did not attend the trial. The Deputy Judge was addressed in detail on behalf of Fineland and Fineland called oral evidence in accordance with witness statements which had earlier been served.
The Deputy Judge reserved her judgment, which was handed down on 31 st January 2011. Mrs Pritchard attended on the handing down of the judgment. The approved judgment extends to some 30 pages. The Deputy Judge considered the documents which had been entered into by the parties, the allegations made by Mrs Pritchard in her Defence and the oral evidence. The Deputy Judge found in favour of Fineland.
A detailed order was drawn up to give effect to the judgment of 31 st January 2011. Mrs Pritchard was ordered to give possession of the premises on 14 th March 2011. The order also provided for the transactions entered into on 9 th August 2004 to be perfected by appropriate registrations at the Land Registry. In particular, it was provided that Fineland should be registered as the proprietor under Title Number SGL 660273 in relation to the lease granted by Mrs Pritchard on 9 th August 2004. The Deputy Judge refused permission to appeal. Mrs Pritchard has not at any time issued an Appellant's Notice seeking to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of 31 st January 2011.
On 4 th and 24 th February 2011, solicitors for Fineland wrote to Mrs Pritchard with a copy of the order of 31 st January 2011. The solicitors specifically referred to 14 th March 2011 as the date on which possession was to be given up. In the second letter, the solicitors reminded Mrs Pritchard that she would need to remove her possessions from the property by that date.
On 9 th March 2011, Mrs Pritchard appeared before David Richards J seeking a stay in relation to the possession order which was expressed to take effect on 14 th March 2011. The judge directed that Mrs Pritchard should decide whether she wished to pursue that application and, if she did, he would hear an application to that effect on 11 th March 2011. Mrs Pritchard did not later indicate to the judge or to Fineland that she wished to pursue the application and she did not appear before the judge on 11 th March 2011, although Fineland was ready to appear through counsel on that date if an application were made.
Although I think that Fineland were not previously aware of this fact, Mrs Pritchard told me at the hearing on 13 th April 2011 that she appeared before Peter Smith J and sought a stay of the order of possession. She did not give me the date of that appearance but she did tell me that the judge said that he could not, or would not, extend the date for possession and informed Mrs Pritchard that if she wished to challenge the order for possession she would have to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Mrs Pritchard did not vacate the premises on 14 th March 2011. On that date, the solicitors for Fineland were contacted by Mr Carew-Reid. On 15 th March 2011, Mr Carew-Reid sent to those solicitors the Claim Form in proceedings which were issued by the Claimants on 11 th March 2011. In the details of claim set out in the Claim Form, Mr Carew-Reid claimed to be the owner of the premises pursuant to an alleged agreement of June 2004. Mrs Pritchard and her son also claimed damages and possession of the premises as a result of what they said was immoral behaviour, conspiracy to defraud and a fraudulent trick by the Defendants. The Defendants included Fineland and also an associated company of Fineland, a director of Fineland and three firms of solicitors.
On 21 st March 2011, Mrs Pritchard issued an application in the 2006 proceedings. The order which she sought was that there be a directions hearing in relation to a later full hearing of an application to stay and/or to set aside the order made on 31 st January 2011. That application was returnable on 7 th April 2011 when directions were apparently given for a hearing on 5 th May 2011.
On or about 30 th March 2011, Fineland applied for a writ of possession and a writ in Form No. 66 was issued on 30 th March 2011. Fineland did not apply for permission to issue this writ. It took the view that the case fell within RSC order 113 r 7 rather than RSC order 45 r 3. It should be noted however that the appropriate writ under order 113 r 7 is Form No. 66A and not Form 66 but I would regard the difference as an irregularity which, on the facts of this case, the court should waive.
On 1 st April 2011, the writ of possession was enforced at the premises by two Enforcement Officers. Mrs Pritchard was evicted. Her son, Mr Carter, was not present at the beginning of the eviction but he returned in the course of it. The premises were secured. Various possessions belonging to Mrs Pritchard and her son remained on the premises. There is a considerable dispute about the way in which the eviction was carried out and about the conduct of the Enforcement Officers, the police (who were in attendance) and Mrs Pritchard herself. On the view I take as to the legal position, it is not necessary in this present judgment to investigate the serious allegations and counter-allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asmaahmed and Others v Shahid Mahmood and Others
...claim against trespassers under Part 55", provided it was done so within three months of the possession order. She relied on Pritchard v Teitelbaum [2011] EWHC 1063 (Ch). 28 In response, the Defendants submitted that it was neither conceded nor decided that the Defendants were trespassers. ......