Practice

'Unless order' made by consent: court having jurisdiction to extend time limitRopac Ltd v Inntrepreneur Pub Co and Another: ChD (Neuberger J): 7 June 2000

On 2 December 1998, the landlords' and tenant's solicitors agreed to an order by consent requiring the tenant to pay a sum on or before 9 December 1998, in default of which the tenant was to deliver up possession of the demised premises.

Time was expressed to be 'of the essence'.

On 9 December 1998, half the sum remained due and on December 18 the court made an order for possession of the premises.

The tenant appealed and sought, among other things, an extension of the period within which he needed to comply with the order of 2 December 1998.

The landlords contended that the court's case management powers in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not give it the power to extend the time within which payments should be made under the order of December 2.Charles Taylor (instructed by Edward Harte & Co, Brighton) for the tenant.

Catherine Taskis (instructed by Masons) for the landlords.Held, dismissing the appeal, that the court's case management powers contained a power to extend time in relation to an order such as that of December 2; that that was the case notwithstanding that the order had been made by consent; that although the Civil Procedure Rules gave the court a wider power to interfere with consent orders, it should place great weight on what the parties had agreed; and that, in the circumstances, it was not appropriate to extend time.