B2/2001/2308
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 63 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE       
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SOUTHEND COUNTY COURT
(DEPUTY CIRCUIT JUDGE RICE)

							Royal Courts of Justice
							Strand
							London WC2A 2LL

							Thursday 24 January 2002

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON

- - - - - -

TABOR PROPERTIES LIMITED
Claimant/Respondent

- v -

AFZAL AHMED SIDDIQUE
Defendant/Applicant
- - - - - -

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040  Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - -
The Applicant appeared in person.

MISS WINDSOR (Instructed by Messrs Drysdales, Southend, SS2 6HZ) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is an application for permission to appeal from a judgment delivered by Deputy Judge Rice in the Southend County Court on 14 June 2001. It was a claim by Tabor Properties against the defendant, Mr Aizal Ahmed Siddique, in respect of possession of premises at 234 Shaftesbury Avenue WC2. I understand that the trial went on for three days. Both parties, including Mr Siddique, were represented by counsel and solicitors. At the end of the trial the judge ordered that there be possession of the premises within 28 days. That was on the basis that, having heard a great deal of evidence, he found a number of significant breaches of covenant and was not prepared to accept much of the evidence given by the defendant. 
2.	The complaint Mr Siddique raises before me has not been directed to the substance of the judge's judgment but to the form in which the order was drawn by the Southend County Court. There were regrettably two errors in that order. The first error was that the order referred to the private residence of Mr Siddique as the possession address instead of 234 Shaftesbury Avenue. Secondly, the order recited that possession was being given because of the failure to pay rent, whereas possession was being given because of a breach of covenant. 
3.	Mr Siddique was understandably concerned about both those matters, more particularly about the fact that the court appeared to have given possession of his private residence. He complained to the court about that in strong terms, as he was entitled to do. The court properly replied by return of post apologising and correcting the error. The order was thereafter amended to set out the correct grounds for possession. 
4.	Those errors were unfortunate, but, as I sought to explain to Mr Siddique, they cannot affect the nature and force of the judge's judgment which remains in the terms I have indicated. Certainly, there are no grounds for complaining in this court about those errors by the county court administration, as opposed to seeking some other form of administrative correction or assistance. 
5.	Those are the only points Mr Siddique has sought to pursue. In correspondence he has complained, in brief terms, about the judge's judgment itself. I have read the whole of the careful judgment and read a substantial part of the papers. If the matter were before me, I would be of the opinion that no possible complaint can be made of the judgment or findings which were, as I have said, principally based on the judge's assessment of the witnesses' evidence after a 3-day trial in which both parties had the benefit of representation by counsel. 
6.	For those reasons permission to appeal is not granted. 
Order: Permission to appeal refused.