Westminster City Council v Chapman and Persons Unknown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BROWNE |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0417-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 17 April 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0417-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Revised
Appeal by Mr. B. J. Norton from order of His Honour Judge White made on Wednesday, 6th March, 1975, at Bloomsbury County Court.
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Browne
and
Sir John Pennycuick.
Mr. BARRY NORTON appeared in person.
Mr. BARRY GREEN (instructed by Mr. E. Woolf, City Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Westminster City Council.
The Westminster City Council own a terrace house, 35 Edbrooke Road, W.9. They wish to use it for housing homeless people in accordance with their statutory duties. But squatters have entered it. The Westminster City Council wish to get an order for possession. Under the rules they have to take all reasonable steps to identify the persons occupying the house. The senior housing assistant has described the steps they took. On 15th January 1975 be went and knocked at the door. He went inside and met some of the people. But they would not give their names. He went back again on 21st January. Still they would not tell him their names. Meanwhile he had found out that a man called Peter Chapman had applied for electricity. So the Westminster City Council took out a summons in the County Court against "Peter Chapman and persons unknown". Now comes the point. Was the summons properly served? The relevant Rule of the County Court is Order 26 Rule 3(2). In the High Court it is Order 113 Rule 4(2).
"Where the applicant has not identified every person in occupation of the land, the originating application shall, in addition to being served on any identified respondents in accordance with paragraph (1), be served by affixing a copy of it, together with a notice in Form 26, on the main door or other conspicuous part of the premises, unless the court directs service in some other manner."
It appears that the bailiff of the County Court did not comply with that direction. He did not put a copy of the application on the main door or other conspicuous part of the premises. All that he did was to put it inside an envelope with the words "Peter Chapman and other persons unknown" on the envelope. Then he pushed it through the letter box. This was on 19th February 1975. The date for hearing (as stated in theapplication) was 5th March 1975.
Two or three days later, that is about 21st or 22nd February 1975, the persons unknown who were in the house picked up the application and read it. In pursuance of it they turned up at the County Court on the day appointed for hearing, which was 5th March 1975. Seven of the occupiers came forward and asked to be heard. The Judge heard the evidence of them all. The squatters gave several reasons why they suggested that they ought not to be ordered out. They challenged the bona fides of the City of Westminster. They suggested that there ought to be separate proceedings in respect of the basement. And so forth. Those submissions were rejected by the Judge and there is no appeal as to them. But one of the squatters, Mr. Melville Churchill, submitted that there had been no proper service of the summons, because it had not been put on the main door or other premises. It had only been pushed through the letter box. That point was adopted by to others. The Judge rejected it.
He said:-
"I was satisfied that all 7 knew of the proceedings from the papers themselves within 2 or 3 days of their being taken to the premises. I expressed the view that the object of the rule was to ensure that the documents referred to were displayed or placed in a sufficiently prominent position to come to the attention of all the occupiers who would be affected by any order the Court might make. The documents in this case had in fact actually come to the attention of all concerned well before the minimum notice period and all had elected to take part in the proceedings."
Now there is an appeal. One of the squatters, Mr. Norton, has spoken on their behalf. Mr. Green on behalf of the City Council, seeing that the squatters are not represented byCounsel, has very properly put all the points...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v Wolking Properties Ltd
...Kammins Ballrooms Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd. (1970) 2 All England Reports 871; they include, in addition, Westminster City Council v. Chapman (1975) 2 All England Reports 1103, Harkness v. Bell's Asbestos & Engineering Ltd. (1967) 2 Queen's Bench 729, a decision of this C......
- Burston Finance Ltd v Wilkins
-
Warwick University v de Graaf
... ... could only be obtained against named persons; and then it could not be enforced except by ... and that the defendants and other persons unknown were in occupation without licence or consent ... any case, a meeting has been held by the Council of the University authorising the proceedings ... The recent-case of Westminster City Council v. Paxton was concerned with an ... ...
-
The Council of the City of Swansea (Applicant) Mr. J. Rafferty Mr. Rafferty Mr. Rafferty Mr. D. Birmingham Mrs. D. Birmingham Mr. M. Birmingham Mr. T. Birmingham Mr. M, Fury Mrs. Fury Mrs. Sheridan Mr. D. O'Brien Mr. C. McCarthy Mr. N. Mulligan Mr. J. Murphy and Mr. E. Jones Respondents whose names are known to the Applicants (Respondents)
...the date of the hearing and that, therefore, on the basis of the decision of this Court in Westminster City Council v. Chapman (1975) 1 Weekly Law Reports 1112, the judge was right in the order which he made. Mr. Diehl sought to distinguish that case on the basis that it was a case dealing ......