[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Croydon Peoples Housing Association v Pilgrim [2001] EWCA Civ 1688 (19 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1688.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1688

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

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, 19th October 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is the adjourned hearing of an application for permission to appeal and of related applications to bring the appeal out of time and to bring in further evidence to this court which was not before the court below. The application is made by Mr Pilgrim in person with the help of his sister.
2. The application first came for a hearing on 20th July. Following what Mr Pilgrim had told me, I decided, for the reasons set out in my judgment, not to grant permission, nor to refuse it but to adjourn the hearing so that I would have the benefit of submissions on behalf of the Housing Association which had successfully taken possession proceedings against Mr Pilgrim in respect of his flat at 15 Akabusi Close, Croydon. Those proceedings had resulted in the possession order made by His Honour Judge Coningsby on 9th January 2001. Following the adjournment the Housing Association instructed solicitors and counsel. A bundle of documents has been submitted to the court, including a detailed skeleton argument in relation to the applications and related documents. I have also received some further documents from Mr Pilgrim.
3. The position on the various applications is this. The Housing Association do not oppose the application by Mr Pilgrim that there be an extension of time for dealing with his application. The Housing Association does oppose his application for permission to adduce fresh evidence. The Housing Association submits that he has no realistic prospect of success on his appeal and there is no other compelling reason why his appeal should be heard. As I indicated in my judgment, the matters on which Mr Pilgrim wishes to bring further evidence cover a number of areas. I will deal with each of them in turn. Unless he has further relevant evidence to bring in on the appeal there is not a real prospect of succeeding on the basis of the judgment given by His Honour Judge Coningsby. It was a very detailed judgment which made findings of fact against which it would be very difficult for Mr Pilgrim to succeed in this court. As I made clear to Mr Pilgrim on the previous occasion, an appeal is not the same as a re-trial. The trial has taken place. The evidence has been heard. Findings of fact have been made. The only function of this court is to decide whether on the basis of the evidence the judge heard there are any reasonable grounds for attacking the correctness of the decision at which he arrived.
4. All the matters Mr Pilgrim seeks to bring forward are obviously of great concern to him. The first matter is his medical condition. I have the benefit of a medical report from his general practitioner dated 5th October 2001. It is more detailed than any previous documents I have seen about Mr Pilgrim's medical problems. It appears that Mr Pilgrim has been receiving disability living allowance for the last seven years. He suffers from what is described as post-concussion syndrome. In the report of 5th October his general practitioner, Dr Cambridge, gives details of the various ways in which the post-concussion syndrome affects Mr Pilgrim's health. He has problems with reduced hearing and breathing problems. He suffers from stress and headaches and he has suffered blackouts and vertigo. Dr Cambridge thinks that he may have suffered a mild stroke at about the beginning of August.
5. Secondly, Mr Pilgrim has now produced further documents - and so has the Housing Association - relating to the complaints he has about the involvement of WPC Madden, who is connected with an organisation called One Stop. He complains that she was involved in him being taken to court for an alleged breach of an injunction, but no evidence was offered against him in court. The matter was not taken any further. He has asked for this matter to be investigated by the Police Complaints Authority. It is being pursued by solicitors on his behalf, Robert Blackford & Co. I have been shown a number of letters they have written. Formal complaint was lodged at Norbury Police Station on 20th September. It appears that the investigation will take between six and eight weeks. The latest letter I have seen relating to this complaint is from Detective Constable Llewellyn, who wrote to the Housing Association on 9th October saying he was investigating Mr Pilgrim's complaint and the dispute with the neighbour, Miss Melanie Gibbs. He asks for the association to provide him with correspondence and details of the dispute which might assist the investigation. The investigation is still proceeding.
6. Thirdly, Mr Pilgrim is proceeding with his complaints against the way in which solicitors formerly acting for him, Daniel Curry & Co, conducted his case. He has made a complaint to the Law Society. I have been shown a letter from the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors dated 22nd August, stating that the file is being reviewed and passed to the Client Relations Office for them to consider the complaint. He will receive in due course a letter from that office. The inquiries are proceeding and has not yet been concluded.
7. The fourth matter which Mr Pilgrim raised last time and has dealt with again today is the fact that, on his account, since the possession order was made in January there has been no further complaint by neighbours about his behaviour, in particular by Miss Melanie Gibbs, or by people coming to do work at the property, such as Mr Barlow. The Housing Association accepts that things have been better than they were before and there have been no further complaints since the trial by Miss Gibbs or other occupants of Akabusi Close, save for a complaint on 1st February 2001 leading to the involvement of WPC Madden.
8. There was a further complaint from Mr Barlow, the deputy manager, about an incident on 18th May 2001. There is an incident report. Mr Pilgrim says that he does not accept that what is alleged against him is true. I am not in a position to express a view or make a finding one way or the other about that. On the whole, it seems that matters have improved. I have no doubt that part of the improvement is due to what Mr Pilgrim has told me about steps he has taken to deal with noise problems by using headphones when he is listening to music.
9. The question of racial issues has featured partly in this case. It does appear that this aspect of the case was dealt with fully by the judge. Mr Pilgrim goes as far as to say there has been some racial abuse on which he has been at the receiving end from Miss Gibbs or a friend of hers. I do not think there is any more that needs to be said about that.
10. In the light of these further documents and facts, I have to decide, first, whether there is fresh evidence that should be admitted. Miss Castle, on behalf of the association, correctly points to the principles on adducing fresh evidence under rule 52.11.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The evidence sought to be brought on appeal must normally be evidence which could not have been obtained by the use of reasonable efforts for use at the trial. It has to be apparently credible. If it is allowed in it must be evidence that would probably have an important influence on the result of the case.
11. Having considered those matters, I agree with Miss Castle that this is a case in which it is not right to exercise the discretion to introduce new evidence.
12. The evidence as to Mr Pilgrim's health and pursuit of his complaints is credible. These complaints are being taken seriously by the police and by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I have no reason to doubt what Dr Cambridge says in his medical report about Mr Pilgrim's health. To some extent the new evidence, such as the improvement in the relationship with neighbours since the order of 5th January, is evidence that was not available for use at the trial. It is evidence of matters which have occurred since then. That is partly true of Mr Pilgrim's health matters and completely true of the improvement in neighbour relations. It seems that the crucial point against the admission of this evidence is that it could not have an important influence on the result of the appeal.
13. I return to what I said in the judgment of 20th July. The judge produced a very detailed judgment based on the evidence he heard and made an order for possession in circumstances which I think are very difficult to challenge in this court.
14. The conclusion to which I have come is that there is no real prospect of persuading this court the judge was wrong to make the order for possession. I emphasise in concluding my judgment what I said at the beginning, that the Court of Appeal does not re-try cases with the old evidence or new evidence. It can only admit new evidence in the circumstances I have mentioned. The restrictive function of this court is to decide whether the trial which has taken place has been fair and produced the correct conclusion. Mr Pilgrim has his points as to why he thinks the trial was unfair and the possible breach of Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights and why he thinks that the result is not correct in the light of this new material. I am unable to accept those submissions. I know he will be disappointed with my decision, but he can be assured that I have considered on more than one occasion all the details of his case.
15. My conclusion is that this application for further evidence should be refused and that the application for permission to appeal should also be refused.
Order: Application refused with no order regarding costs.