England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BRENTFORD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE EDWARDS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Monday, 5 February 2001

Monday, 5th February 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by Miss De Souza for permission to appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Edwards on 28th July of last year. On that day he refused her permission to appeal against an order of District Judge Plaskow which he made on 9th June. The district judge had ordered her to give up possession of premises which were at 89 Frazer Road Perivale, Middlesex. They were an annex to a property owned by the claimant in which Miss De Souza had lived with the son of the claimant.
2. Miss de Souza asserted before the district judge that she had in fact done work to those premises. She had lived there as the son's common-law wife and she had a right in law to remain. The district judge decided that she was a mere licensee and the licence had been determined. On the information that I have in the papers that decision was inevitable; so was the order for possession.
3. The circuit judge, Judge Edwards, in those circumstances was clearly correct to refuse her leave to appeal. He ordered costs and he declined to permit there to be any stay on the issue of the warrant for possession.
4. Her application for permission to appeal against the decision of the circuit judge is one which creates an immediate problem for her because section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act now precludes any appeal on substantive issues from a refusal of permission to appeal. Therefore, in relation to the application before me insofar as it relates to the order for possession, there is in fact no jurisdiction in this court to grant permission to appeal. I would not have done so anyway because there are no merits.
5. As far as the order for costs and the refusal of the judge to stay the warrant for possession is concerned there were no grounds on which he could possibly have failed to award costs and there are no grounds upon which he could have stayed the warrant for possession.
6. In those circumstances, unhappily for Miss De Souza, the order of the judge is one which was wholly correct. The applications before me must be refused.
7. I understand Miss De Souza's determination and I have no doubt that she will seek to take the matter further but I fear that, as far as I am concerned, the only proper order is that her application before me is, as I have said, refused.
(Application refused; no order for costs; permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused).