OtherFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·28 January 2021

First-tier Tribunal Grants Stay to Finalise Agreement in Tenancy Dispute

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a tenancy dispute, the First-tier Tribunal granted a stay of 12 months to allow the parties to finalise and implement their agreement. The stay will be lifted if the parties do not provide updates by the deadline.

⚖️ Legal holding

The parties agreed to a stay to allow their agreement to be finalised and implemented.

Topics

stay of proceedingsagreement between parties

📖 Technical summary

The claimant and respondent reached an agreement and requested a stay to finalise it.

📜 Headnote Official document

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Other

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) and IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER, sitting at 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Case reference : LON/00AH/LSC/2019/0360 & 0361 County court claim numberS : D56YJ459 E55YJ693 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : V: CVPREMOTE Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant/Claimant : [redacted] : ADH Legal Ms [COUNSEL], counsel Respondent/ Defendant : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL], direct access counsel Type of application : Transfer from County Court – Service & Administration Charges, Interest and Costs Tribunal members : Judge Nicol Mr C P Gowman [NAME] of decision : 14th December 2020

DECISION

(1) By consent, the cases are stayed until 14th December 2021. (2) The parties may apply to end the stay or to withdraw but, if they do not do so by 14th December 2021, the cases will be struck out.

2 Reasons 1. The Applicant/Claimant is the freeholder and the Respondent/ Defendant is the lessee of one of the two flats at [ADDRESS]. The Applicant issued two claims in the county court: • D56YJ459 April 2017 £6,865.33 • E55YJ693 April 2018 £5,990.69 2. On the second claim, default judgment was obtained but then set aside and the claim transferred to the Tribunal by District Judge Obodai on 11th January 2019.

3. By order made on 22nd August 2019 Deputy District Judge Falder similarly set aside a default judgment on the first claim, joined the two claims together and sent them both to the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal issued directions for both cases on 8th October 2019. Amongst other matters, the Tribunal directed that all issues would be decided together so that the Tribunal judge would sit as a county court judge to decide matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court.

5. The hearing was initially listed for 17th January 2020 but was adjourned to 13th May 2020 due to problems with compliance with the directions. It then had to be further adjourned due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. A hearing was eventually held on 16th November 2020 but that too had to be adjourned, to 14th December 2020. The hearing was attended by: • Ms [COUNSEL], counsel for the Applicant; • Mr [COUNSEL], counsel for the Respondent; and • Mr [COUNSEL].

6. The parties have been able to reach a measure of agreement, albeit at the last minute, and, at the hearing, jointly sought a stay of 12 months to allow the agreement to be finalised and implemented. Both the Tribunal and the court consented to this, save that the parties must inform the Tribunal within the period of 12 months what is happening with the cases and, if they do not, they will be struck out.

Name: Judge Nicol Date: 14th December 2020

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed10 cases

Allowed in Part2 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

The parties agreed to a stay of 12 months to allow their agreement to be finalised and implemented.
Both the Tribunal and the court consented to the requested stay.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal granted a stay of 12 months to allow the parties to finalise and implement their agreement.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the respondent in a tenancy dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant a stay because the parties reached an agreement and needed time to finalise it.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the decision.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The most important argument was the mutual agreement between the parties.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, as it allowed them to finalise their agreement.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to request a stay to finalise an agreement.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The agreement between the parties was the primary factor in the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can typically be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.