Grimason v Cates [2013] EWHC 2304 (QB) (26 July 2013)
Own a flat? Think again.
Own a flat? Think again.
Grimason was a case where the landlord obtained forfeiture of a lease on the basis that the tenant had not paid ground rent totalling £600. Grimason had bought the flat in 2006 for £100,000. She didn’t attend the forfeiture proceedings because, on her case, she had not been aware of them due to a failure properly to serve her with them. The forfeiture order was made in June 2011. Nine months later the landlord sold the flat for circa £100,000.
Needless to say Grimason appealed. Her submissions on failure to serve were rejected. So were her arguments that the forfeiture hearing had not been a ‘trial’ as such and so her seeking of relief from the forfeiture order should be considered under CPR 3.9 (relief from sanctions) and not the stricter CPR 39.3(5) failure to attend trial criteria. Grimason failed on all counts – see our report below.
But! What was really interesting from my perspective was that the end result was, in effect, that the landlord ‘recovered’ £100,000 to satisfy a debt of £600. That’s arguably something of a windfall. Grimason had tried to argue unjust enrichment and restitution but these failed. She then tried to argue that the result was so disproportionate as to amount to a decision that no reasonable tribunal could have come to (Wednesbury principles) and a breach of her Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 1 of the First Protocol: right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). Disappointingly, in dismissing this ground of appeal the judge simply stated it lacked merit without providing further analysis.
Needless to say Grimason appealed. Her submissions on failure to serve were rejected. So were her arguments that the forfeiture hearing had not been a ‘trial’ as such and so her seeking of relief from the forfeiture order should be considered under CPR 3.9 (relief from sanctions) and not the stricter CPR 39.3(5) failure to attend trial criteria. Grimason failed on all counts – see our report below.
But! What was really interesting from my perspective was that the end result was, in effect, that the landlord ‘recovered’ £100,000 to satisfy a debt of £600. That’s arguably something of a windfall. Grimason had tried to argue unjust enrichment and restitution but these failed. She then tried to argue that the result was so disproportionate as to amount to a decision that no reasonable tribunal could have come to (Wednesbury principles) and a breach of her Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 1 of the First Protocol: right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). Disappointingly, in dismissing this ground of appeal the judge simply stated it lacked merit without providing further analysis.
Comment