[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 >> Ford v Mulder [2001] EWCA Civ 1419 (24 August 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1419.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1419

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE FERRIS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday 24th August 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER: This is an application by
2. Mr Gerrit Mulder (who has appeared in person) to reinstate an application for permission to appeal which was dismissed in Mr Mulder's absence by Dyson LJ on 22nd February 2001.
3. Mr Mulder has stated, in a written statement which he signed on 10th August 2001, that he had no notice of the hearing before Dyson LJ. That is not something that I can investigate and I shall assume that Mr Mulder is completely correct in saying that he did not have notice. I shall therefore consider this application on its merits.
4. The background is that in 1984 Miss Helen Ford became the sole registered proprietor of a long leasehold residence, 14E St Pauls Terrace, London SE17. From then until last year she lived with at the property with Mr Mulder. They were not married but they lived together for over 15 years.
5. Her evidence, which was accepted by Judge Cox, sitting at Lambeth County Court, was that Miss Ford paid the whole of the deposit, the mortgage repayments, the insurance and council tax. Mr Mulder produced documentary evidence that he had paid her $3000 US in 1996 and that he had paid for a computer but the County Court judge did not accept that that gave him any beneficial or other interest in the property for the purposes of Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996.
6. Unhappily, the relationship between Miss Ford and Mr Mulder came to an end some time before 29th February 2000. That was the date when Miss Ford asked Mr Mulder to leave the property. When he declined to do so, she instructed solicitors and Mr Mulder, in turn, consulted solicitors. Miss Ford applied to the County Court for a summary order for possession under order 24 of the County Court Rules. On 24th May 2000 Judge Cox made an order for possession on 7th June 2000.
7. Mr Mulder says that Miss Ford should have proceeded under part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 and not under order 24. However, the judge found that Mr Mulder did not have any beneficial interest in the property and that he had remained in occupation of the property after his permission to be there had expired. He was therefore within the terms of order 24, even though that is a provision which also applies to squatters who have never had any lawful permission to be in occupation of property.
8. Mr Mulder applied, as he had the right to do so, for permission to appeal to the High Court. His grounds of appeal were that the claim should have been dealt with under the Family Law Act 1996, and that he had not been given the opportunity to make representations at the hearing in the County Court.
9. After one hearing before Lightman J, the matter came before Ferris J on notice, that is with the other side represented and, on 6th October 2000, Ferris J refused to grant permission to appeal. He referred to the hearing in the Lambeth County Court and to some documentary evidence which had been produced on that occasion by Mr Mulder. That evidence related to payments made by Mr Mulder, one in October 1995 and the other in May 1996, but Ferris J said that neither was evidence of the acquisition of any beneficial interest in the property.
10. The County Court judge had given Mr Mulder an opportunity to be heard. The County Court judge had refused to grant an adjournment, but as Ferris J said, "a party is not entitled as of right to an adjournment in order to obtain legal advice, especially when he had an opportunity to obtain legal advice".
11. Under section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Court of Appeal has no power to hear an appeal from or otherwise to review a decision of a High Court Judge refusing permission to appeal from an order of a County Court judge. This Court, therefore, simply has no power to hear an application for a further appeal from the order for possession. This Court would, as Mr Mulder correctly points out, have power to grant permission to appeal from Ferris J's order awarding costs against Mr Mulder. However, although that jurisdiction exists, I can see no grounds on which such an appeal could possibly succeed. The hearing before Ferris J was on notice. The other side came along and successfully opposed the application and the judge's exercise of his discretion as to award costs against Mr Mulder was entirely within the scope of his discretion. It would have been extraordinary had he made any other order.
12. In those circumstances, Dyson LJ was correct, in the short judgment which he gave in Mr Mulder's absence, to say that there was no jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal against so much of Ferris J's order as refused permission to appeal from the County Court judge.
13. I have considered afresh the application for permission to appeal against the costs order made by Ferris J, but I can see no possible prospect of success for such an appeal, and I refuse permission for it.