Background
Hammersmith and Fulham Council obtained an outright possession order against Janet d’Sa in the Wandsworth County Court on 25 March 2026. The order was made in her absence, after an earlier warning that it could be made if she did not attend. The District Judge found that Ground 2 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985, concerning antisocial behaviour, was established and that an outright possession order was reasonable.
D’Sa said that she had been in hospital on the day of the hearing, had lodged appeals that the county court had not processed, and had not been served with the possession order. A county-court eviction notice dated 30 June 2026 scheduled eviction for 11 August 2026. She applied urgently in the High Court to stay the eviction and have her appeal processed there.
The Court’s Holding
Fordham J refused to grant either form of relief sought. The High Court was not persuaded that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the District Judge’s possession order in place of a Circuit Judge in the county court. An application to set aside an order made in absence, and an application concerning the county-court eviction notice, should also first be made to the Wandsworth County Court.
The judge encouraged D’Sa to make an urgent application in the county court to set aside the possession order, list her asserted appeal, and/or stay the eviction. The court made no findings on her factual account, noting the incomplete documentary record and that the council and county court might have material information.
The High Court adjourned her N244 application and transferred it to the Administrative Court to continue as judicial review proceedings against the council and the Wandsworth County Court. Those proceedings were stayed with liberty to apply. D’Sa was also given permission to make an urgent Form N463 application for a stay of eviction in the Administrative Court, provided she identified this judgment, showed what steps she had taken in the county court, and gave fair notice to the proposed defendants.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from a District Judge’s county-court possession order lies to a Circuit Judge in the county court, not ordinarily to the High Court.
- Applications to set aside an order made in absence and to stay enforcement of a county-court eviction warrant should first be made to the issuing county court.
- The High Court retained only a constrained residual supervisory role through judicial review; it did not determine the merits of D’Sa’s possession dispute or factual allegations.
Why It Matters
The decision underlines the importance of using the correct procedural route in urgent possession cases. Even where a litigant alleges unprocessed appeal papers and imminent eviction, the High Court will not assume the county court’s appellate or case-management role.
Judicial review may remain available in tightly constrained circumstances concerning the handling of county-court proceedings, but it is not a substitute for an appeal, an application to set aside an absence order, or an initial application to stay an eviction.