Housing

Secure tenancy - application to suspend possession order - district judge having discretion to consider matters not relied on in claim for possessionSheffield City Council v Hopkins: CA (Lord Woolf CJ, Tuckey and Arden LJJ): 19 June 2001The council was granted an order for possession, on the ground of non-payment of rent, of a property in respect of which the defendant was a secure tenant.The tenant applied under section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 for the order to be suspended.

The council, in opposing the application, wanted to adduce evidence of nuisance by the tenant.On the hearing of a preliminary issue, the district judge held that the court could not take into account matters which had not been relied upon by the council in the original claim for possession.

The judge upheld that decision.

The council appealed.Brian McGuire and Thomas Tyson (instructed by City Solicitor, Sheffield City Council, Sheffield) for the council.

Kim Lewison QC and James Stark (instructed by Sheffield Law Centre) for the tenant.Held, allowing the appeal, that on an application to suspend an order for possession under section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 the district judge had a discretion as to whether to take into account matters not relied upon by the landlord in the claim for possession; that that discretion should be exercised in the light of the policy of part IV of the 1985 Act, as reinforced by the Human Rights Act 1998, schedule 1, part I, art.

8, and the overriding principles in CPR part 1; that the tenant would need clear notice of allegations made if what was being relied upon had not been contained in the original order for possession; that generally the discretion should be exercised more readily to take into account matters which had occurred subsequent to the making of the possession order; and that, accordingly, since the district judge had erred, the matter would be remitted to him for reconsideration (WLR).