England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 20th July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: Mr Pilgrim, who appears in person, has three applications on his proposed appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Coningsby QC on 8th January 2001 in Croydon County Court. His Honour Judge Coningsby made an order on the application of the Croydon Peoples Housing Association that Mr Pilgrim should give up possession of a flat at 15 Akabusi Close, Croydon and that he should leave the property by 1600 hours on 23rd January 2001. Mr Pilgrim's applications are (1) an application for permission to appeal against that order; (2) an application for extension of time in which to appeal, because his application was one day late; and, (3) an application for permission to bring before the Court of Appeal more evidence.
2. The background to the case I will deal with briefly in view of the order that I propose to make. The Croydon Housing Association owns the property at 15 Akabusi Close. Mr Pilgrim has had an assured weekly tenancy of the flat since 1995. The tenancy contains the usual provision about not causing nuisance. The trouble is between Mr Pilgrim and a tenant at No 18 Akabusi Close, Miss Gibbs, who has been there since 1999. She complains that threats and insults have been made against her by Mr Pilgrim. A similar complaint has been made by Mr Barlow, a worker employed by the housing association. He says that he was on the receiving end of threats and insults while working on neighbouring property. There has also been some trouble about car parking causing a nuisance.
3. Proceedings for possession were taken by the housing association against Mr Pilgrim. They were issued in the middle of June 2000. The housing association relied on ground 14 in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 as entitling them to possession. There was a two-day hearing in court in Croydon. Mr Pilgrim and the housing association were legally represented. Judge Coningsby gave a very detailed judgment about the background to the dispute, the evidence he had heard and his findings of fact. They are contained in a detailed judgment of 15 pages. His conclusion was that there was a nuisance and there were grounds for making an order for possession. He concluded that right from the beginning Mr Pilgrim did not want Miss Gibbs there and was looking for opportunities to find causes for complaints against her, making complaints against her and making her life miserable in the hope that she would go. The judge said this is what can be called a classic case of nuisance by one tenant to another tenant and towards a particular individual in a neighbouring property. The judge considered whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession and considered other options that were open to him. He concluded that -

"Mr Pilgrim has had plenty of opportunity to show that he will give up his campaign against Miss Gibbs and Mr Barlow, and he has not shown that he will desist. In fact it has continued."

4. The judge said:

" ..... having considered all the circumstances of the case ..... I have come to the conclusion that it is reasonable ..... to make an immediate order for possession ..... "

5. I explained to Mr Pilgrim at the outset of the hearing that it is difficult for him to succeed on an appeal against findings of fact which have been made by a judge on all the evidence and which has been carefully weighed by him in a detailed judgment of the kind given by Judge Coningsby.
6. However, Mr Pilgrim brought to my notice a number of matters which have persuaded me that I should adjourn the hearing, so that the housing association can be represented and the court can have the benefit of their views on the points raised by Mr Pilgrim. I am not in a position to grant Mr Pilgrim permission to appeal, because I am not satisfied on the papers and by what he has told me that he has a real prospect of success. I am satisfied, however, that there are a number of points the court should investigate further with the housing association before a final decision one way or the other is made about the future of Mr Pilgrim's proposed appeal.
7. The fresh matters are these: first, Mr Pilgrim says he wishes to bring before the Court of Appeal two items of evidence which were not before the court in Croydon. The first is medical evidence. He has produced a letter from his doctor, Dr Cambridge of Greenside Surgery, Croydon, confirming that Mr Pilgrim is a patient:

"He is an ex professional boxer who has suffered with post concussion syndrome since 1994. He also has reduced hearing in his right ear and as a result tends to talk more loudly than normal."

8. The letter confirms also that Mr Pilgrim has been in receipt of disability living allowance for 7 years. He is also receiving certain medical treatment which he refers to in his letter of 22nd June. When I asked Mr Pilgrim why this evidence was not before Judge Coningsby he made a complaint about the handling of his case by the solicitor who represented him at that time, and informed me that a complaint had been made to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. He told me quite bluntly that he did not think his case had been dealt with properly.
9. I should also add that there have been further incidents in Mr Pilgrim's health which he has mentioned and for which he should obtain a medical certificate before the adjourned hearing. He told me that about a week after the hearing in January he suffered what he called a small stroke and about two weeks ago he suffered some loss of use in his right arm which he attributes to the stress of this case. This medical evidence, if it can be confirmed by a medical certificate, might be relevant to the question whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession or whether it was reasonable that, if an order for possession was going to be made, for it to be made immediately.
10. There is one other point. Mr Pilgrim tells me that there has been no trouble between him and Miss Gibbs since January when this order was made and today. That is a matter on which I form the view that the court should have further information.
11. The second matter on which Mr Pilgrim wishes to bring more evidence is that he has, through the solicitors acting for him, Robert Blackford & Co at Croydon, lodged a complaint about one of the witnesses who gave evidence in the Croydon hearing. One of those witnesses, as appears from the judge's judgment, was a Police Constable Madden, who was the community liaison officer from the Croydon Police Station who started to have contact with Miss Gibbs in October 1999 when she made a complaint about racial harassment and had subsequently made a number of recorded complaints about Mr Pilgrim. Mr Pilgrim's solicitors wrote a letter saying that they had been consulted about a complaint which Mr Pilgrim wished to make against WPC Madden following the series of incidents which occurred on the housing association estate. The solicitor's letter of 25th June 2001 states that Mr Pilgrim felt that WPC Madden was working too closely with Miss Gibbs, with whom Mr Pilgrim experienced difficulties. He made specific complaint on his arrest and subsequent production at Croydon County Court. It is alleged that WPC Madden was instrumental in court proceedings being taken at which, the solicitors understood, no evidence was offered against Mr Pilgrim. It does not appear from the papers that there have been any further developments about that complaint. It would obviously be relevant for the court at the adjourned hearing to be told more about what has happened as a result of that.
12. I should also mention that Mr Pilgrim makes a number of complaints about the judge's judgment, quite apart from these new developments which he wishes to put before the court. He says no proper weight was given by the judge in the evidence contained in the trial bundle. The judge did not consider the issue of race between himself and Miss Gibbs which he thought was central to the case. I should mention that it appears from paragraphs 37 and 38 of his judgment that Judge Coningsby was well aware of the racial difference between Mr Pilgrim and Miss Gibbs. Mr Pilgrim also has a point that he had a number of witnesses who failed to appear at court for him to give evidence in January and therefore his case had not been fully presented to the judge.
13. Those grounds are all matters to be considered by the court at the adjourned hearing.
14. What I propose to do is to adjourn this hearing for it to be re-fixed at a time convenient to Mr Pilgrim and to the legal representatives of the Croydon Peoples Housing Association. That is to be a hearing on notice to the housing association so they should be represented. What the court will particularly require at that hearing are, first, any further evidence to be produced by Mr Pilgrim from his doctor about his present medical condition and also about any further developments following the complaint his solicitors made about the conduct of WPC Madden. It will also be relevant for the court to have submissions from the housing association on these points and whether they are, in their view, relevant to the decision whether or not to grant permission. It will also be relevant for the housing association to place before the court any information they have relevant to Mr Pilgrim's statement that over the six months that have passed since this order was made there has been no further problem.
15. THE APPLICANT: I think it is nine months.
16. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: No. It is since January.
17. THE APPLICANT: Is it? I thought it was November.
18. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: The judge's order was in January.
19. THE APPLICANT: Okay.
20. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: It is six or seven months. For those reasons I propose to adjourn the hearing and for the court to have submissions from the housing association at the adjourned hearing.
21. I have pointed out to Mr Pilgrim there is a possible down side to the course I have taken; if at the adjourned hearing the court is of the view that Mr Pilgrim's appeal has no real prospect of success, he will not be allowed to pursue the appeal and the housing association may ask for an order for costs to be made against him. Today, Mr Pilgrim is not represented and so has incurred no legal costs. I note that he was legally represented at the hearing in Croydon and an order was made for the assessed costs of the housing association to be paid, but it was not to be enforced as at that time. Mr Pilgrim had public funding and an order was made for a public funding detailed assessment of his costs. If Mr Pilgrim is not in receipt of public funding for this appeal, he may not receive the same protection as he did in the Croydon County Court in respect of the housing association's legal costs. I will make a note to say adjourned for hearing on notice and for you to produce, if you have it, further medical evidence about your stroke and about the progress of your complaint against WPC Madden. You have to follow that up.
Order: Application adjourned