Dr. Smith tried to stop his eviction from his flats, but the court said he had already agreed to leave and there was no valid reason to prevent the eviction. He gets 14 days to move out.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Smith applied to stay execution of a writ of possession for flats 11 and 12 Hamilton House.
- •Respondents were appointed joint receivers to take possession and sell the properties.
- •Dr. Smith had previously agreed to vacate the flats by a consent order (18 December 2022), but later refused.
- •A writ of possession was issued on 20 March 2023.
- •Dr. Smith argued there was no due process, the order was contrary to an earlier order, the consent order was entered into by mistake or under duress, and that the receivership order was subject to appeal.
Legal Principles
Court orders are final and binding unless set aside or appealed.
Common Law
Parties are bound by previous court orders and cannot raise contradictory claims.
Common Law
Consent orders are binding unless set aside.
Civil Procedure Rules
Claims of mistake or duress in relation to consent orders must be credible and sufficiently evidenced.
Common Law
Outcomes
Dr. Smith's application to stay execution of the writ of possession was dismissed.
Previous court orders determined the relevant interests in the flats, and did not recognise Dr. Smith's claimed tenancy rights. The consent order was valid and binding. Claims of mistake and duress were not credible.
Eviction was permitted to proceed after a 14-day delay.
To allow Dr. Smith time to remove his possessions.