Contact one of our advisors now Call 0800 088 6004

Sufficient Notice for High Court Enforcement

The recent case of Partridge v Gupta [2017] which set out the principle that where enforcement of a possession order by High Court writ is concerned,  “notice of the proceedings” means notice of the proceedings in general, not of the specific application for the writ itself has been further approved.
In Brooker & Wilson v St Paul HHJ Coe QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court on 13 October 2017 determined that the principle in Partridge was correct.
CPR 83.13 governs the enforcement of possession orders in the High Court and requires that every person in possession of the land must have received notice of the proceedings sufficient to allow them to apply for relief before permission to issue a writ will be granted.
The 2015 case of Secretary of State for Defence v Helen Nicholas held that “notice of the proceedings” referred to notice of the application for permission to issue the write.
Earlier this year the Partridge case decided that was not correct – notice of the proceedings themselves was sufficient as thereafter it would be obvious that enforcement action would follow.
In the St Paul case the Defendant had been actively involved in possession proceedings and was aware of the making of the possession order.  The Judge found that it was therefore obvious that enforcement would follow imminently and followed Partridge v Gupta in finding that the Defendant had had sufficient notice of the proceedings as a whole.

Call us today for a free initial discussion on 0800 088 6004. Our Private Landlord team are here to give you all the help you need.