London Borough of Southwark v Adatola Erekin, England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Mr Moore for the Claimant
Mr Bailey for the Defendants

Judges

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LADDIE

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

London Borough of Southwark v. Adatola Erekin

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

An appeal was brought by the Mayor and Burgesses of Company A against a decision by Judge Cottran refusing to make a possession order regarding premises occupied by the first respondent, hereafter referred to as Defendant, and her five children. The Defendant had obtained housing from Company A based on a fraudulent application and committed further frauds, resulting in an 18-month imprisonment sentence. The Defendant's children had lived in the premises since 1997, and during her imprisonment, the Defendant's mother resided there to care for the children. The children’s home environment was stable. The initial hearing addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to make a possession order and whether it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances. The Judge found jurisdiction was established due to the fraud but declined to make a possession order, considering the Defendant’s fraud weighed against the children's stable living situation. The council sought permission to appeal, initially refused but later granted by the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the court had jurisdiction to make a possession order based on the Defendant's fraudulent application.
Whether, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to grant a possession order against the Defendant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Defendant committed extensive fraud in relation to the housing application and other matters, justifying possession.
There was immense pressure on Company A’s housing stock, particularly for four-bedroom properties, which are in high demand with many families living in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation.
The judge should have taken the pressure on housing stock into account explicitly when deciding to refuse possession.
Given the weight of the fraud and housing demand, the discretion should have been exercised in favor of granting possession.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Shrewsbury v Atcham Borough Council [1997] 30 HLR 123	Where there has been a deliberate lie to obtain public housing, possession orders will generally be granted except in exceptional cases considering homelessness legislation.	The court referenced this precedent to acknowledge the seriousness of fraud but noted that possession orders are not automatic and must consider all circumstances.
Cumming v Danson [1942] 2 All ER 653	Judges must consider all relevant circumstances at the date of hearing in a broad, common-sense manner, weighing factors appropriately.	The court applied this principle in assessing the balance between the Defendant’s fraud and the children’s stable home environment.
Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-Macdonald [2000] WLR 1311	An appeal against the exercise of judicial discretion succeeds only if the lower court exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.	The court used this standard to determine whether the first-instance judge’s discretion was properly exercised and concluded it was not exceeded.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the undisputed fraud committed by the Defendant, establishing jurisdiction for possession. However, the key issue was whether it was appropriate to make a possession order given all circumstances. The judge at first instance balanced the Defendant’s extensive fraud against the stable and positive environment for the children, who had lived in the premises for several years and were well cared for. Although the appellant emphasized the severe pressure on housing stock, the court found no indication that the first-instance judge failed to consider this factor despite its absence in the written judgment. The judge’s decision was described as borderline but reasonable within the discretion afforded. The appellate court emphasized that it is not to substitute its own view but to assess if the judge exceeded the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement. Finding no such error, the appeal was dismissed.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the possession order was not granted, allowing the Defendant and her children to remain in the premises. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision underscores the discretionary nature of possession orders even in cases of fraud, particularly when children’s welfare is a significant factor.