[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Eagles & Anor v Phillips & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 289 (22 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/289.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 289

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SWINDON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCNAUGHT)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 22 February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: This case was listed for 11.30 am. It is now 12 noon. The case has been called on and there is no appearance by or on behalf of Mr and Mrs Phillips who seek permission to appeal this case. In those circumstances I propose to give a very short judgment.
2. This is a claim by Mr and Mrs Eagles for one month's rent outstanding pursuant to the determination of a tenancy. They were awarded £410, plus court fees, by District Judge Thomas on 15 May 2000. The defendants sought to appeal that decision but their application was dismissed by His Honour Judge McNaught on 28 July 2000. It is against that decision that they seek permission to appeal.
3. It will be seen that this is a second tier case and permission to appeal will not be given unless the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it (see section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999).
4. I have considered the papers carefully. In my judgment there is absolutely no substance in this appeal at all. It is impossible to say, as the defendants seek to say, that the district judge was not entitled to make the findings of fact that he made. The critical question is, when did the defendants vacate the premises? It is plain from the documents, and in particular the document at page 54 in the bundle, that they did not vacate until about 20 September 1998. Once that finding of fact is made and it cannot be challenged, then the inevitable consequence is that the judgment must stand. In any event it is quite plain that the stringent requirements of the 1999 Act are not satisfied. Accordingly this application must be dismissed.
5. It is implicit in the conclusion that I have reached that I have considered the fresh evidence that the defendants wish to adduce. I refuse that application for permission to adduce that evidence.
Order: Application for permission to adduce fresh evidence refused. Application for permission to appeal refused.