header-logo header-logo

22 September 2020
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

Return of possession

Possession cases have resumed in the courts following a six-month hiatus, with extra judges and court staff scrambled to cope with the deluge

In a practice note issued this week, Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, said a ‘cadre of 200 additional Deputy District Judges (and Property Tribunal Judges) has been assembled to assist as required’ with proceedings. Claims have been stayed since 26 March due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the stay ended on 20 September.

Law Society president Simon Davis said he anticipated a ‘huge increase in cases’ on top of ‘the established backlog and the difficult circumstances facing landlords and tenants’. He warned there were legal aid deserts in Cornwall and Telford, and called on ministers to ensure tenants had legal representation during possession proceedings.

Sir Terence’s practice note covers listing and prioritisation of cases, and new procedures including a requirement that the claimant set out information on the impact of the pandemic on the defendant, and the introduction of ‘COVID-19 case marking’ to draw the court’s attention to certain cases and a ‘review date’ designed to encourage the parties to come to an amicable agreement. Claims issued before 3 August will not be listed until a reactivation notice has been served.

Samuel Lane, solicitor at Irwin Mitchell, said: ‘The COVID-19 marking is sure to be contentious with both parties likely to be keen to have the claim marked in their favour.

‘This step, along with the addition of the ‘review date’, appears to be creating further work for an already over-worked system. It is likely that some claims may take up to, if not in excess of, 18 months to resolve from the date a notice is issued to the date that possession is achieved, if bailiffs are required.’

The new arrangements were drawn up by a working group of interested parties convened in June, and can be viewed at: bit.ly/2FZKtPz.

Issue: 7903 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll