Applications for Anti Social Behaviour Orders under Section 1B Crime and Disorder Act 1998 struck out  

Leeds Federated Homes Limited, a registered social landlord brought a claim for possession against Ms McGibbon on the grounds 12 & 14, related to the criminal conduct of members of her family, one of whom lived with her but others who lived elsewhere. Leeds City Council , was joined as a Second Claimant for the purpose of seeking orders under Section 1B Crime and Disorder Act 1998 namely anti social behaviour orders against seven others who were alleged to be associated with the tenant’s property and her family . No application was made for an anti social behaviour order against the tenant and indeed no conduct of the tenant was relied upon as a ground for possession. The last allegation was from August 2007; in October 2007 a number of the seven defendants to the ASBO applications were sentenced (including three non-custodial sentences) for offences related to dealing of Class A drugs – there were no new allegations since then.

The third, fifth, sixth and eighth Defendants argued that the court had no jurisdiction to join the Leeds City Council ASBO applications to these proceedings as Section 1B provides for ASBOs to be obtained in the County Court in three limited sets of circumstances none of which applied i.e (i) by a relevant authority who was a party to the principal proceedings e.g by the RSL against the tenant (ii) by an intervening relevant authority against a party to the principal proceedings e.g by the local authority against the tenant or (iii) by a party to the principal proceedings against a non-party – and there was no evidence that the RSL was seeking to join the other seven defendants , or had complied with the consultation requirements of S1E(4) Crime and Disorder Act 1998

It was also argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process as even if the RSL had been seeking to add the other seven defendants they were required to do so in accordance with CPR65.23 and make an application under Part 19 to join them as a party supported by evidence in accordance with CPR65.25

District Judge Saffman upheld the objections and struck out the claims by Leeds City Council on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a Section1B application by a non-party to principal proceedings against other non-parties to principal proceedings and that the courts powers were limited to the three scenarios the Defendants had identified. He also struck out, without prejudice to the RSL’s right to make an application in accordance with CPR65.23 properly supported by evidence under CPR 65.25 within 14 days, the purported RSL claim for ASBOs for failing to comply with CPR 65.23.

Leeds City Council were ordered to pay the third, fifth, sixth and eighth Defendants’ costs

James Stark instructed by Elsia Todd of Davies Gore Lomax, solicitors represented the tenant and the third, fifth, sixth and eighth Defendants.