The recently reported case of A v B [2025] WLUK 89 provides some guidance on how the court may approach applications to suspend a warrant of eviction made by a Defendant who has failed to make payments towards a mortgage, as promised.

Background

A possession order had been made in July 2023. The Defendant successfully applied to have the first scheduled eviction, due to take place in December 2023, suspended on the basis of a potential remortgage, which did not materialise. In separate family proceedings, an order was made against the Defendant in that they were to pay an ex-spouse a sum of money.

Nine months later, another eviction was set. The Defendant provided evidence at that hearing that they would be able to clear the sums within weeks, and the eviction was suspended for two months on the basis of an undertaking made by the Defendant.

Third Application

The matter came back before the court for a third time, and the Defendant indicated that they would redeem the mortgage within 10 additional weeks’ time. They were due to receive a sum of money from a business deal involving a company that he was a director of.

Judgment

Mellor J dismissed the Defendant's application and found that the Defendant would not be likely to pay pursuant to s. 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973.

The Defendant had not fulfilled the promise of clearing the mortgage, nor had the family order sums been paid. The sums that the Defendant would receive in 10 weeks would not fall to be allocated to him as they would form part of a wider business deal. The Judge took his evidence with scepticism and dismissed the application, allowing the eviction to proceed.

Comment

The Judge clearly took into account the lack of payments toward the account and the Defendant's lack of action in electing to dismiss the application. These points factored into the analysis of s36 above.

The conclusion is clear that the court should consider the case holistically and look at its whole history when considering the merits of any proposals put forward by a Defendant. If there has been a history of broken promises, the Defendant’s evidence should be treated with scepticism.