Da Rocha-Afodu & Anor v Mortgage Express Ltd & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns the appeal by Mr and Mrs Da Rocha against a judgment dismissing their claims of conversion of personal chattels by MX. The appellants' belongings were disposed of by MX, which enforced security over their property. The court held that MX had acted reasonably as an involuntary bailee and that the appellants failed to prove the value of their lost chattels.
J U D G M E N T
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: This is an appeal by Mr and Mrs Da Rocha from the order dated 19 January 2012 of District Judge Langley sitting in the Central London County Court whereby the District Judge dismissed the Appellants' claim for damages of conversion of personal chattels. She made an order for costs against the Appellants with an interim payment of £50,000 to be paid by 27 April 2012.
I am indebted to the judge for her clear and concise judgment. I also pay tribute to the able submissions that we have had from both counsel.
I am going to set out the background first and I will do so relatively briefly. The alleged conversion of the Appellants' chattels arose out of events relating to the enforcement by the Respondent, which I will refer to as MX, of its security over 30 Miles Drive, London, SE28, which I will call the property. The Appellants fell into arrears. MX obtained a suspended order for possession on 12 October 2005. The Appellants breached the terms of the suspension. MX obtained a warrant of execution on 11 November 2005. There were attempts to delay execution of the warrant.
The Appellants were finally served with notice of eviction on 4 September 2006, given an eviction date of 9 September 2006 and the letter which accompanied that document or the notice itself warned the Appellants to arrange "to leave the property with all your belongings before this date and time". This, in fact, was only one of the warnings which the Appellants received.
The Respondent's solicitors wrote to them about the need to remove their possessions from the property on 29 November 2005, 22 May 2006 and 5 September 2006. Nonetheless, when the Appellants left the property, they left a considerable amount of their personal belongings on the property.
Mr Da Rocha returned to remove his possessions on some three occasions; 1 October, 5 October and 21 October 2006. Meanwhile, MX's agents had put up notices at the property stating that if the chattels were not removed within 14 days, the agents would be entitled to dispose of the chattels in an appropriate manner. The first such notice was put up on 29 September 2006. Mrs Goodall, an employee of MX, noticed that this had been removed. She replaced it with a second notice warning about removal of the chattels if they were not removed within 14 days.
Mr Da Rocha made a fourth appointment to collect further chattels from the property on 3 November 2006. However, when he and the agent arrived, the subcont