Introduction

The case TFS Stores Ltd v. The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Ltd & Ors ([2020] EWCA Civ 833) is a pivotal decision by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This judgment addresses the scope and applicability of the automatic stay imposed by Practice Direction 51Z (PD 51Z) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly its extension under the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020 (the "2020 Rules"). The dispute revolves around six tenancies where TFS Stores Ltd, trading as the Fragrance Shop, sought declarations against eviction orders made by different landlords. The core issue was whether the automatic stay under PD 51Z applied to the appeals in these possession proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the application of PD 51Z and its extension under the 2020 Rules to stay the appeals in both actions brought by TFS Stores Ltd. The judgment clarified that any possession proceedings initiated under CPR Part 55, including appeals arising from such proceedings, are subject to the automatic stay. Consequently, the substantive appeals related to possession orders were vacated until the stay's expiry on 23 August 2020. The court emphasized the blanket nature of the stay, aiming to alleviate the judicial burden during the pandemic and prevent evictions that could exacerbate public health risks.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced two prior Court of Appeal cases:

• Arkin v. Marshall [2020] EWCA Civ 620 ("Arkin"): Established that PD 51Z imposes a general stay on proceedings covered by it and emphasized the difficulty in identifying exceptions that would allow lifting the stay without undermining its purpose.
• London Borough of Hackney v. Okoro [2020] EWCA Civ 681 ("Okoro"): Clarified that "possession proceedings brought under CPR Part 55" include appeals from such proceedings, reinforcing the comprehensive nature of the stay.

Additionally, the court referenced Re Children (Remote Hearing: Care and Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 583 for guidance on remote hearings but distinguished it based on the nature of the proceedings in the present case.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously examined whether the appeals in both actions were classified as "possession proceedings brought under CPR Part 55." In the first action, the presence of a counterclaim for possession inherently engaged CPR Part 55, thus falling under the automatic stay. In the second action, even though the landlords initially sought only declarations, subsequent consensual possession orders transformed the proceedings into possession actions under CPR Part 55. The court rejected the respondent landlords' argument that the counterclaims were merely procedural and not subject to PD 51Z, emphasizing the intent behind PD 51Z to provide a blanket stay without distinctions.

Furthermore, the judgment underscored that any attempt to "salami slice" the proceedings to circumvent the stay would undermine its purpose. The court also addressed the rare circumstances under which the stay might be lifted, deeming them not applicable in this case.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the broad applicability of PD 51Z and the 2020 Rules in staying possession proceedings and related appeals during the COVID-19 pandemic. It prevents parties from selectively advancing parts of their cases, ensuring that the judiciary's temporary reprieve from possession actions is uniformly respected. Future cases involving possession proceedings under CPR Part 55 will likely reference this judgment to determine the scope of automatic stays, promoting consistency and predictability in legal proceedings during periods of public health crises.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in TFS Stores Ltd v. Designer Retail Outlet Centres serves as a crucial affirmation of the breadth and enforceability of PD 51Z's automatic stay on possession proceedings and their appeals. By upholding the applicability of the stay to both initial possession claims and subsequent appeals, the court ensured that the intended relief for courts and vulnerable tenants during the pandemic remains effective. This judgment not only clarifies the legal landscape surrounding automatic stays in possession cases but also sets a strong precedent for maintaining judicial efficiency and public health safeguards in extraordinary circumstances.