The client sought advice following receipt of an eviction notice dated 23 January 2025. The background stems from a 2016 financial settlement with her ex-husband, under which she was to pay £45,000 for his interest in the matrimonial home. Despite efforts to pay, she alleges that her ex-husband frustrated the process.
In a hearing where the ex-husband successfully obtained a Civil Restraint Order (CRO) and a possession order. The client subsequently made an application dated 9 January 2025 to stay execution of the warrant, hoping to retain the property.
The matter is complicated by two possession warrants—one from the ex-husband and one from the lender. The lender was not served with the client’s application, and the court file contains inconsistencies.
Previous orders, including one in 2016 and a later order granting possession on 24 June 2022, were not complied with. The client’s appeal was lodged 16 months out of time and deemed totally without merit.
The client no longer holds an automatic right to purchase the property. The CRO prevents further applications without court permission, which was not sought. Her application to reopen the order lacked supporting evidence of payment and was procedurally flawed.
It was advised that the application was unlikely to succeed due to the CRO and prior non-compliance. The court dismissed the application to suspend the ex-husband’s warrant and re-listed the matter concerning the lender.
Costs of £2,956.80 were claimed but not properly served. A reduced figure of £2,400 was accepted, payable from sale proceeds. The application against the lender was withdrawn. The client was advised to attend court and consider next steps carefully.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy