Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK |
| Judgment Date | 18 October 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1594 |
| Docket Number | A3/1999/0958 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 18 October 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 1594
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Peter Leaver QC
(sitting as a deputy High Court judge))
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Chadwick
A3/1999/0958
MR R DENMAN (Instructed by Messrs Joseph Aaron & Co, Ilford IG2 6LR) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR J ALTHAUS (Instructed by Messrs Armstrong & Co, London SE25 3XU) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
The present application is to settle the terms of an order arising out of judgments given in this Court -first, on 21 December 2000 (now reported at [2001] 2 WLR 1638); and second, on 11 July 2001 in proceedings between Davinia Patricia Bland and Ingram's Estates Ltd and others.
Put very shortly, the effect of those decisions was that Mrs Bland, as equitable chargee of a lease of premises known as 54/56 The Parade, Bourne End, was held entitled to relief from forfeiture of that lease on 26 April 1996 by the then landlords, Ingram's Estates Ltd, against that company and against Mr Fogir Uddin and his wife, Ripon Chowdhery Fogir, the second and third respondents, who had taken a new lease of the premises three days later on 29 April 1996. Mrs Bland was entitled to relief on terms that she paid to Mr and Mrs Uddin the aggregate sum of £23,000-odd in respect of rent accruing before 29 April 1996, the costs of effecting re-entry, and interest and an amount in respect of the notional costs that would have been incurred on an unopposed application for relief in the County Court, but after deduction from that aggregate sum of the costs which she had been awarded on her successful appeal.
Although the second of those judgments was given on 11 July 2001, it has been impossible, so far, for the advisers to Mrs Bland, on the one hand, and Mr and Mrs Uddin, on the other hand, to agree an order to give effect to the decision. In those circumstances, pursuant to the direction given on 11 July, the matter has now been mentioned to me.
There are two points at issue between the parties. The first is whether the relief should be stayed pending a decision of the House of Lords on a petition for permission to appeal which (I am told) has been lodged by the first defendant, Ingram's Estates Ltd. There is no petition for permission to appeal yet lodged on behalf of Mr and Mrs Uddin; nor has it been suggested that there will be.
It is, I think, common ground that a decision whether or not to stay pending the outcome of that petition (and any subsequent appeal if permission to appeal is granted by the House of Lords), really determines at least for the present the related question whether relief should be effected in the immediate future (under some accelerated procedure directed for that purpose); or only effected after the amount of the costs have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2)
-
Croydon (Unique) Ltd v Wright (Crombie and Another intervening)
... ... 44 Lastly under this head I come to Bland v. Ingrams Estates Ltd (1999) EGCS 54 ... That was again an application for relief under section ... ...
-
The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd)
...possessory rights in relation to land may also qualify for relief from forfeiture is to be found in the judgment of Nourse LJ in Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd [2001] Ch 767. The plaintiff had a charging order (creating an equitable charge) over a lease of land. The landlord forfeited the lea......
-
Ian Edward Walker and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc and Another
...or for the appointment of a receiver, but no right to foreclosure (so as to make the property his own) or [to] take possession." In Bland v Ingram Estates Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 1638, CA Nourse LJ having just cited the dictum of Peter Gibson J in Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Matthews Treasure ......