Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellants purchased a residential property with mortgage funding from the Respondent in 2018, then entered a further 2020 mortgage and charge to replace the earlier mortgage and fund renovation works. [Para 36] The 2020 mortgage term expired on 28 October 2023, the Respondent demanded repayment in March 2024, and the Appellants unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief in separate proceedings. [Para 37] The Respondent then brought possession proceedings, relying on alleged breaches of clauses 12(a), (b), and (c) of the 2020 mortgage, and the Deputy District Judge found those breaches proved and ordered possession. [Para 38][Para 39] Permission to appeal that possession decision was later refused, largely because only a complaint about the slip-rule order remained and the earlier fraud-related grounds had been abandoned. [Para 41][Para 43] The present appeal concerns a later order by Judge Ritchie striking out an email request for oral reconsideration of a refusal of permission to appeal, together with related applications for fresh evidence, amended grounds, and interim relief. [Para 48][Para 51][Para 55]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Judge Ritchie was wrong to strike out the Appellants’ email request for an oral reconsideration of the refusal of permission to appeal. [Para 27][Para 56]
- Whether the Appellants were required to obtain permission under the limited civil restraint orders before making that reconsideration request. [Para 28][Para 60]
- Whether fresh evidence should be admitted and the grounds of appeal amended to challenge the validity, execution, attestation, alteration, and enforceability of the charge. [Para 66][Para 71]
- Whether an injunction should be granted to prevent sale of the property pending the fourth set of proceedings. [Para 68][Para 72]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Appellants said the charge may be invalid because of issues concerning witness attestation, crossed-out signatures, and alleged irregularities in execution and registration. [Para 69][Para 71]
- They argued that these matters justified a fresh ground of appeal and fresh evidence, and went to the enforceability of the mortgage underlying the possession order. [Para 70][Para 71]
- They also sought an injunction to stop the sale, saying there was a strong arguable case that the charge was invalid and that the Respondent was selling the property at an undervalue rather than achieving best value. [Para 72]
Respondent's Arguments
- The Respondent accepted, on a narrow basis, that the appeal against Judge Ritchie’s order could be allowed because the Appellants should not have been denied an oral reconsideration request. [Para 29]
- It opposed interim relief, relying on the outstanding debt, the lack of any meaningful cross-undertaking in damages, and the Appellants’ impecuniosity. [Para 73][Para 76][Para 87]
- It also contended that the sale-price complaint could be addressed later in proceedings about the mortgage account, and that the injunction application should in any event have been made in the fourth claim. [Para 87]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that CPR 52.4(2) permits a party whose permission-to-appeal application was refused on paper to request oral reconsideration, and CPR 52.4(3) only removes that right if the judge expressly orders that the application is totally without merit. [Para 77] Judge Ritchie’s strike-out was therefore wrong because he had not made an order under CPR 52.4(3) preventing reconsideration, so the Appellants were entitled to make the request by email without a formal application notice. [Para 27][Para 78] The Court did not decide the limited civil restraint order point, because the Respondent did not oppose the appeal on the narrow procedural basis. [Para 28][Para 78]
The Court then chose to determine the matter itself rather than remit it, because the overriding objective was better served by resolving the issue immediately and the Appellants had already had ample time to address it. [Para 79] On the merits, the Court agreed that the underlying application for permission to appeal remained entirely without merit, including because the procedural requirements for an appeal bundle and service had not been satisfied. [Para 80]
The proposed fresh evidence and amended grounds were rejected because they added no material assistance: the Appellants had long known of the witness signature point, the witness evidence was unsupported, and the deed alterations appeared to be mere clarification for registration rather than any improper change. [Para 82] The Court also noted that, even if the legal mortgage were defective, the documentation and advance of funds were capable of supporting an equitable mortgage in any event. [Para 83]
The injunction application failed because there was no serious issue to be tried on the material before the Court, the balance of convenience strongly favoured the Respondent, the Appellants could not provide a meaningful cross-undertaking in damages, and the undervalue complaint could be pursued later in mortgage-account proceedings. [Para 84][Para 85][Para 87]
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED IN PART AND OTHERWISE DISMISSED. The appeal was allowed only on the narrow procedural point that Judge Ritchie wrongly struck out the email request for oral reconsideration, but the Court itself dismissed the reconsideration request, refused the applications for fresh evidence and amended grounds, and refused the injunction to prevent sale. [Para 89] The practical effect was limited: the Appellants obtained correction of the procedural error, but no substantive relief from the possession/sale consequences or from the underlying refusal of permission to appeal. [Para 89]