Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns twin sisters, referred to as the Appellants, who were joint tenants of a council flat at 61 Highfield Tower, Romford. Their landlord, Company A, sought possession of the flat on two grounds: first, that at the time notice to quit was served, neither tenant occupied the flat as her only or principal home; and second, that there were significant rent arrears justifying possession. The trial judge granted possession to Company A, and the Appellants appealed with permission.
Prior to trial, one of the Appellants lost publicly funded legal representation shortly before trial, leading to a last-minute adjournment application which was refused. The judge postponed the trial start by one day to allow the Appellants to prepare as self-represented litigants. The Appellants raised medical issues, but no sufficient medical evidence was provided to support adjournment on that basis.
During trial, Company A introduced a DVD recording of an inspection of the flat, which had been used in prior proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The Appellants were aware of the DVD and its contents, and no objection was made at trial. One Appellant was absent on the last day due to illness, but the trial proceeded with her written evidence admitted.
The substantive issue concerned whether either Appellant occupied the flat as her only or principal home at the relevant time. The FTT had previously decided against the Appellants on this issue in appeals concerning housing benefit withdrawal. The trial judge heard fresh evidence but reached the same conclusion as the FTT, finding neither tenant occupied the flat as her principal home.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Appellants occupied the flat as their only or principal home at the time the notice to quit took effect.
- Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the last-minute application for adjournment following withdrawal of legal aid.
- Whether the introduction and use of the DVD evidence at trial was procedurally unfair.
- Whether the trial judge was bound by, or properly considered, the findings of the First-tier Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The judge misdirected himself by treating the adjournment application as if it were an application for relief against sanctions, failing to properly balance the prejudice to the Appellants against any prejudice to Company A.
- The Appellants had insufficient notice and opportunity to challenge the DVD evidence introduced at trial.
- The trial judge was wrong to consider himself bound by the FTT's findings and should have reached a different conclusion on the occupation issue.
- The judge failed to properly consider the Appellants' intentions regarding the flat as their principal home.
Company A's Arguments
- The judge correctly refused the adjournment due to the late withdrawal of legal aid being the Appellants' own responsibility and the need to avoid further delay and prejudice to Company A.
- The DVD evidence was not new and had been considered in prior proceedings; the Appellants were aware of it and had the opportunity to address it.
- The judge was entitled to adopt the FTT's findings or to reach the same conclusion on the evidence before him.
- Neither Appellant occupied the flat as their principal home, given their settled patterns of residence elsewhere and lack of intention to change that.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Decker v Hopcraft [2015] EWHC 1170 (QB) |
Requirements for medical evidence supporting adjournment on medical grounds. |
The court noted the absence of appropriate medical evidence from the Appellant and the chronic nature of the medical condition, justifying refusal of adjournment. |
| Bowden v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 245 |
Balancing exercise required when considering late adjournment applications due to change in legal representation. |
The court distinguished this case, finding the judge did properly balance factors in refusing adjournment. |
| Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 |
Framework for relief against sanctions and importance of avoiding last-minute adjournments. |
The judge was familiar with Denton but did not treat the adjournment application as a relief against sanctions case; the court upheld the refusal to adjourn to avoid prejudice and delay. |
| Islington LBC v Boyle [2011] EWCA Civ 1450 |
Clarification of the test for occupation of a dwelling as only or principal home under the Housing Act 1985. |
The court applied principles from Boyle regarding objective assessment of occupation and intention to return. |
| Crawley BC v Sawyer (1987) 20 HLR 98 |
Consideration of intention to return to a dwelling as principal home after temporary absence. |
Referenced as authority on intention to revert to previous pattern of residence. |
| Camden LBC v Goldenberg (1996) 28 HLR 727 |
Assessment of principal home status in light of changes and intentions regarding residence. |
Used to illustrate the importance of intention and pattern of residence in determining principal home. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed procedural and substantive analysis. Procedurally, it found the trial judge correctly refused the adjournment application because the delay was caused by the Appellant's late legal aid application, and there was no sufficient medical evidence to justify adjournment. The court emphasized the importance of finality in trial dates and the significant prejudice and resource waste caused by last-minute adjournments, citing Denton and related authorities.
Regarding the DVD evidence, the court found no procedural unfairness as the evidence was not new, had been relied upon in prior proceedings, and was addressed by the Appellants during trial.
Substantively, the court applied established principles from Rent Act and Housing Act case law to the question of whether either Appellant occupied the flat as her only or principal home. It noted that occupation does not require continuous physical presence but must be assessed objectively, considering the pattern of residence and intention to return.
The court reviewed the evidence, including findings of the FTT and fresh evidence at trial, concluding that both Appellants had established settled patterns of residence elsewhere and no intention to change that. The judge was entitled to find neither occupied the flat as their principal home at the relevant time, meaning they were not secure tenants and Company A was entitled to possession without proving a statutory ground.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The court upheld the possession order granted by the trial judge, confirming that neither Appellant occupied the flat as her only or principal home at the relevant time and that the landlord was entitled to possession. The refusal of the last-minute adjournment was proper given procedural history and absence of compelling medical evidence. The decision clarifies the application of established principles regarding occupation and reinforces the importance of case management and finality in litigation. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing law to the facts.