[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 >> Mohammed v West London County Court [2013] EWCA Civ 207 (30 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/207.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 207

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR CMG OCKELTON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		30th January 2013

Lord Justice Pill:

1. This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. It was refused at an oral hearing by Mr CMG Ockelton sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 17 May 2012. There was an application shortly afterwards to Pitchford LJ, and he made an order to which I will refer. The application arises out of a grievance which the applicant, Mrs Sabra Mohammed, has against her landlord, a Mr Caxton-Martin. She was his tenant for many years at 45 Leonard Court, Edwards Square W8, and he successfully brought proceedings for possession of the flat. As the applicant has explained, she has grievances, no doubt genuinely felt by her, about the tenancy arrangement. She submits that the landlord did not comply with the tenancy agreement. She submitted also that the tenancy was not valid. And Mrs Mohammed, a well-travelled lady, an accomplished lady, a piano teacher, feels aggrieved about the way in which she has been treated.
2. I start by saying that the County Court is the appropriate forum for such disputes. The applicant has described to me how she was evicted, the trauma involved in that, including the treatment of her aged mother. An ambulance had to be called, and the applicant herself has suffered great distress, she says. She also complains of damage to her property in the course of the eviction.
3. What I have to consider is whether there is a remedy in this court by way of judicial review. What the applicant seeks is a stay of County Court proceedings in the Central London County Court and the West London County Court. There is a restraint order against her. It refers to a hearing of a money counterclaim which was due to have on 10 May 2012, and when she appeared at court the application counterclaim had to be adjourned, because the file had been mislaid; it has still not been reheard.
4. The eviction occurred on 20 July 2012, in circumstances about which the applicant has told me. It came before Mr Ockelton on 17 May 2012. The applicant arrived at 10.00 for the hearing. The court was empty; it appears there had been a misunderstanding, into the merits of which I do not propose to go, and the case was not heard until 2.00 p.m. The applicant was heard; she was assisted by a Mrs Clarke, who trades under the name of All Cases Advocates. The High Court Judge allowed Mrs Clark as well as the applicant to address him. The judge considered the background in some detail. His conclusion was, as stated at paragraph 12:

"They have had longstanding disputes with their landlord, and, it is clear from the correspondence, longstanding disputes with virtually everybody else in the block. [That is quite irrelevant to this application] Those are disputes which, if they are to be sorted out judicially, are for the county court. Judicial Review in this court is not an appeal from the County Court. It is the process by which, as a residual matter, there is judicial supervision of the County Court if necessary. This is not a case where it is shown to be arguably necessary."


5. There had previously been consideration by Ouseley J on the papers. I refer to a ruling of Pitchford LJ of 31 May:

"There appears to be no arguable basis for the claimant for judicial review, as Ouseley J explained in full in writing on 11 April 2012. There is certainly none revealed by the grounds now advanced. There is a bare assertion that the County Court acted without jurisdiction, but not the slightest averment in law or fact to substantiate it."

The Lord Justice went on to consider forthcoming proceedings in the County Court, and it was there that a further application should be made.

6. On the renewed application to this court, the papers have been considered by Lewison LJ, and I have his written reasons before him. He states:

"I agree both with the Deputy Judge and with Pitchford LJ that there is no arguable ground for judicial review."

Particulars are given of that view. I agree with it, and I see no prospect of success in this court. As has been said in the cases, Parliament has put in place an adequate system for reviewing the merits of decisions made by district judges, and it is not appropriate there should be further review of these by the High Court. Provision was made in relation to the events I have just described on 26 April 2012 for permission to appeal against the possession orders which had been made in October 2011 and January 2012, and permission to appeal was refused.

7. Stress had been placed by the applicant on her outstanding counterclaim, amongst other things. In relation to that, Lewison LJ stated:

"Whether Mrs Mohammed had a valid monetary counterclaim does not affect the landlord's entitlement to possession following service of a section 21 notice."

Particulars are given of that, and why the County Court is the appropriate forum, and this court has no jurisdiction.

8. I understand the applicant's sense of grievance. She is a lady of mature years who has been evicted from her flat. I make no judgment as to the merits of her dispute, because those are for consideration in the County Court and not this court. If apology is called for, for the delay of between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. before the hearing in this court on 31 May 2012, then I am quite prepared to give it. Having heard the eloquent submissions of the applicant, I am quite unpersuaded that there is a real prospect that, on further consideration, relief would be granted to her in this court.
9. Accordingly, the application must be refused.

Order: Application refused.