JT v. Daejan Properties Ltd

JT v. Daejan Properties Ltd

(Central London County Court - 2003)  


On 24th December 2001 a partner of the firm had a conversation with JT at St Stephen's Church, Westbourne Park Road, London W11.  JT was at that time living in the church, having been made homeless from his previous accommodation.

JT mentioned that a flat on Edgware Road was still in his name, as he had been told over the telephone by the Land Registry.  It transpired that JT was the owner of this flat.  He had abandoned it some 10 years previously to go and live with a friend because he could no longer afford the service charges and ground rent.  He owned the flat free of mortgage - having bought it with savings from his previous successful career as an electronic engineer, before he had become mentally unwell.

With borrowed funds we obtained a psychiatric report which stated that JT was not responsible for his behaviour in the manner of a normal person by reason of mental illness.  His psychiatric condition met the criteria for "a patient" under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the rules of Court.  We entered into a retainer and Conditional Fee Agreement with the Reverend of St Stephen's Church, who looked after JT's affairs, to enable us to pursue JT's claim for the return of his very valuable flat.  For the Reverend's protection and peace of mind, and again using borrowed funds, we obtained "after the event" insurance protection in respect of the potential exposure to paying costs in case the application failed.  (This cover was obtained through Mike Young Legal Associates after other providers had declined to give cover.)

We issued an application before the Central London County Court to set aside a Possession Order by way of forfeiture of lease that had been made many years previously in favour of the freeholder/reversioner, Daejan Properties Limited.  Our application was brought on the basis that the special rules for bringing claims against patients had not been followed and that the risk of a defendant being a patient (and therefore the responsibility to take particular steps to deal with that) always falls on the claimant.  We asserted that there was no time limit for bringing such an application provided that it was brought promptly upon proper legal advice being obtained. We also applied for compensation for the profits that those landlords had earned by letting the flat during the intervening years, allowing them credit for monies that JT owed them.  

The application came before his Honour Judge Levy QC in December 2003.  We instructed Kevin Farrelly of 10 Old Square Lincoln's Inn, who had advised us throughout.

After fully considering the facts of the case and with the benefit of advice from Kidd Rapinet Solicitors, Nicholas Dowding QC and Edward Cole of Falcon Chambers, the landlords to their credit acceded to the application - and so JT had his flat and a sum of money restored to him some 12 years after losing it.


JSB/bc