‘AK, R (On the Application Of) v Westminster City Council (2024) EWHC 769 (Admin). This was a judicial review of Westminster’s Allocation policy as it applied to ‘reciprocal transfers’ between another borough and Westminster.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd June 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Code of Practice for England was launched on the 8 April 2024, and has been endorsed by numerous organisations across the agricultural sector. Whilst the Code will be of interest to all of those involved with agricultural tenancies, this article, written by Annie Higgo, focuses in particular on the predicted areas of impact that the Code will have for litigators.’
Tanfield Chambers, 20th May 2024
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The Defendant owns the former County Hall opposite the Houses of Parliament on the South Bank. Until March 2019, the Claimant, the well-known “quick service” restaurant chain, ran a restaurant from part of the ground floor and basement of the building pursuant to a lease which had the protection of the 1954 Act. The restaurant was one of the Claimants highest profile sites. At the end of the contractual term, the Defendant landlord served a notice pursuit to section 25 indicating that it would oppose the grant of any new tenancy on the “own occupation” ground in section 30(1)(g). That lead to proceedings in the County Court at Central London in late 2018. The Defendant called two witnesses who attested that the landlord intended to run its own restaurant from the premises serving Japanese food under the trading name “Zen Bento”. It produced a business plan to that effect. The landlord’s principal offered an undertaking to that effect. Despite extensive cross-examination of the landlord’s witnesses, the County Court Judge accepted the landlord’s case, and indeed its undertaking, that it had a firm and settled intention to open a “Zen Bento” restaurant and made an order terminating the tenancy in March 2019. However, the landlord failed to open a restaurant at the site when it said it was going to (by November 2019). It opened a restaurant on the ground floor in March 2020 and, having opened the same restaurant briefly in September 2020 and closed it due to COVID restrictions, it opened a different restaurant, a coffee shop and bakery, in the basement in early 2021. The former tenants sued the Defendant in deceit and for damages under section 37A of the 1954 Act. The landlord accepted that the restaurants which it had in fact opened (and which were still trading) were different from the one it had told the County Court it intended to open and that there had been a delay in opening them but said it had genuinely changed its mind as to what it wanted to do and that the delay was largely down to COVID restrictions.’
Landmark Chambers, 13th May 2024
Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘Mr Chohan and Mr Ved knew each other from childhood. From 2008 Mr Ved ran his accountancy business, Sterling Associates, from part of the premises comprising 5TC pursuant to a series of licence agreements with the then tenant of 5TC, Eutopia Ltd (“Eutopia”).’
Gatehouse Chambers, 28th May 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘Querino v Cambridge City Council (Rev1) (2024) EWCA Civ 314. This was a second appeal to the court of appeal from a s.204 appeal of a decision on suitability of accommodation offered to Mr Querino in discharge of homeless duty.’
Nearly Legal, 9th June 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘C v Oldham Council: Hynek v LB Islington. Central London County Court 24 May 2024. These are two s.204 appeals which address the effect of the Withdrawal Agreement (The Agreement of the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union,) on eligibility for housing assistance/homeless duties.’
Nearly Legal, 9th June 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The High Court in England recently handed down a judgment emphasising the importance of landlords not contriving development schemes to regain possession of premises in order to try to circumvent the statutory grounds of opposition to renewal of business tenancies under the 1954 Act, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd June 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Sovereign Network Homes v Ms Vanessa East, Claim Number H01W1247 (13 May 2024, Central London County Court). This was a county court appeal of a first instance decision to allow an application to suspend a warrant, and vary a possession order, (Ms East had applied to set aside the possession order), obtained by Sovereign Network against its shared ownership lessee, Ms East.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd June 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Conservatives’ promise to abolish no-fault evictions before the election will not happen, sources have told the BBC.’
BBC News, 24th May 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A landlord in Kent has been sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for three years, and ordered to pay £75,000 in costs after being found in contempt of court.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd May 2023
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Bailiffs are evicting more renting households than at any time in the last six years, the Ministry of Justice has said, as protesters chanted for rent controls outside the HQ of Britain’s biggest listed private landlord.’
The Guardian, 16th May 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Bano, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2024) EWHC 654 (Admin). Waltham Forest owed Ms Bano the full housing duty. In June 2020, WF made an offer of a private sector tenancy in Derby. Ms Bano refused the offer as unsuitable. In disputed evidence, it was said that Ms Bano’s daughter made a review request by WhatsApp on 14 June 2020. WF sent a cancellation of temporary accommodation letter on 19 August 2020. Solicitors for Ms Bano made a request for a review in September 2020, which WF refused as out of time.’
Nearly Legal, 12th May 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A recent Upper Tribunal decision involving a city council has significant implications for local housing authorities and landlords alike, writes Mikhail Charles.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th May 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Stefan Liberadzki discusses the new Intermediate Track and fixed costs.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th May 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This is a note of a county court appeal on the issue of whether Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 applied to the prescribed documents required to be given to the tenant before service of a section 21 notice – EPC, GSC, How to Rent Guide. This judgment is of particular interest because permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been given, so this will (eventually) be a matter for Court of Appeal authority.’
Nearly Legal, 6th May 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Engmann v The London Borough of Lambeth (Wandsworth County Court, 17 April 2024). Engmann was Lambeth’s secure tenant since October 2018. Since the start of the tenancy there had been damp and mould due to defects to external brickwork and a failed damp proof course. In December 2022, a leak started at the property, causing the collapse of the living room ceiling a month later. A month after that, the electrics failed and the tenant was without electricity for 6 weeks. The issues continued, with ongoing problems withe the electrics.
The tenant issued a claim for damages and works in February 2023. In March 2023, by consent order, Lambeth agreed to provide the tenant with decant accommodation from early April 2023, and to complete works by May 2023.’
Nearly Legal, 6th May 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Spur House is the latest FTT decision on remediation orders. It adds to the tally a fifth case (after the Leigham Court Road, Orchard House, Centrillion Point and Space Apartments). Robert Bowker focuses on just three key features of the case followed by three take-away points.’
Tanfield Chambers, 26th April 2024
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Timothy Polli KC, Carl Fain, and Katie Gray discuss what the rules are in the LTA 1987 amendments, as well as the issues that arise between FTT appointed managers and Regulator- appointment special measures managers.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2024
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In Ghaoui v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2024] EWCA Civ 405, Mr Ghaoui, his wife and two young children lived in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. They were rendered homeless in April 2019 and Mr Ghaoui applied to the local authority for assistance with accommodation. In September 2019, he sent his older child to a fee-paying Muslim nursery in Waltham Forest [2]. The family was evicted in March 2020 and Waltham Forest LBC provided temporary accommodation in the Harlow area, some 20 miles from their previous address, which made it harder for the parents to get to work in London and for the child to go to the nursery [3]. In early September 2022, the younger child entered the same nursery [5]. Mr Ghaoui argued that in offering them accommodation 20 miles from the school, Waltham Forest was “not considering their rights”, while Waltham Forest explained at some length that it was not under any legal duty to provide accommodation that allowed the children to attend a specific religious school: in short, it was not a housing “need” [6]. The point at issue was whether or not the local authority was, in fact, under any such obligation.’
Law & Religion UK, 1st May 2024
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘Weintraub v London Borough of Hackney (2024) EWHC 845 (Ch). An appeal of the dismissal of a claim for a declaration that Rabbi Weintraub had the right to buy, which was dismissed on the basis that he was not occupying the property as his only or principal home.’
Nearly Legal, 28th April 2024
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025