‘In Cutler v Barnet LBC (QBD 21/10/14) Supperstone J held that a judge had erred in not considering a defendant’s oral application for relief from sanction. The court had a discretion to consider such an application even where a formal application under Part 23 had NOT been made.’
Zenith PI Blog, 10th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Wickland (Holdings) Ltd v Telchadder; [2014] UKSC 57; [2014] WLR (D) 469
‘Where the owners of a mobile home park had given an occupier written notice that they would seek a court order terminating his agreement to live at the park unless he stopped his anti-social behaviour, which under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 was required prior to any eviction, they could not rely on that same notice when he next committed a further act of anti-social behaviour three years later.’
WLR Daily, 5th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Shelter, the housing charity, is calling for a ban on “revenge evictions”, which it says are being carried out by bad landlords on tenants who dare to complain about inadequate conditions or ask for repairs to be made.’
Full story
The Guardian, 25th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A firm that purchased properties in the north east of England on the condition that the previous owners would be entitled to remain in their homes indefinitely was not in a position to make such a promise, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This High Court judgment is remarkable in many ways, most of them worrying. It was the result of a six day hearing, with Southwark putting Kelvin Rutledge QC up against Mr AA in person and ended with findings against Southwark that were as bad as they could possibly be (and just perhaps even worse than the available evidence would support).’
NearlyLegal, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Lenders must be careful to ensure that they do not lose the right to enforce their remaining rights under a security agreement when they choose to enforce only part of it, the Court of Appeal has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Housing officers conspired to unlawfully evict a Sudanese refugee from his council flat and destroy his possessions, including memory sticks holding thousands of hours of work, before then covering up their wrongdoing, a judge has ruled.’
The Independent, 16th October 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘There have been a number of attempts by those facing repossession and worse at the hands of mortgage lenders to dispute the validity of the claims against them on the basis of a failure to comply with the necessary legal formalities. Mortgage lenders typically send a mortgage offer letter that they invite their borrower to sign. Often the mortgage lender does not formally sign the offer letter. At the time of an advance there is usually a mortgage deed which is often signed by the borrower not the lender.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th September 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The government (through its Minister for Communities and Local Government, Stephen Williams) today announced its backing to Sarah Teather’s private members bill, whose aim is to prevent landlords from evicting tenants who have complained about disrepair in their home or where health and safety hazards are found to exist at the premises, using the accelerated possession procedure. Statistics provided by Shelter show that 200,000 tenants faced possession proceedings in the last 12 months in response to complaints about the condition of their home.’
NearlyLegal, 11th September 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘For most parties that enter into litigation (save for those on CFAs and some who are legally aided) a win isn’t really a win unless the other side is also ordered to pay your costs. I say most, because certain litigants enter into litigation knowing that come what May their costs will be paid on the indemnity basis. They have the foresight (or more accurately the power) to draft contracts which provide that, in the event of litigation, the other side (often a borrower or a long leaseholder) will indemnify them for all their legal costs irrespective of whether they win or lose.’
NearlyLegal, 31st August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Regina v Ali (Salah) [2014] EWCA Crim 1658; [2014] WLR (D) 366
‘It was permissible for the statutory assumptions in section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be applied in a case where a defendant was either voluntarily or involuntarily absent through illness.’
WLR Daily, 31st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘At the time of the decisions in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow v Powell [2011] 2 AC 186 it was thought that a seismic shock wave would be sent through the Courts requiring them in every claim for possession of residential premises by a public sector landlord to undertake a time consuming balancing exercise to assess the “proportionality” of making an order for possession. The Courts, it was thought, would be overwhelmed. This has in fact not proved to be the case. The County Court has become adept at weeding out the weak cases early on and even where the article 8 point is run to trial the Court has, by and large, been robust in its approach. The one issue which has remained unresolved for a surprisingly long time is the question of the extent to which the principles set out in Powell and Pinnock would apply in a possession claim where the land owner is a private individual and not part of the public sector.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th August 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has issued a last-minute order to prevent the eviction of a disabled social housing tenant.’
Local Government Lawyer, 6th August 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Aster Communities Ltd (formerly Flourish homes Ltd) v Akerman-Livingstone [2014] EWCA Civ 1081 (30 July 2014) is an extraordinary decision that will – if allowed to stand – have a significant impact on the day-to-day management of possession claims in the county court.’
NearlyLegal, 5th August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘We have already reported briefly on the Supreme Court decision to refuse permission to appeal to the tenant in the case of a Spencer v Taylor on the grounds that no new points of law were raised.’
NearlyLegal, 3rd August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In possession proceedings the court should approach a defence based on disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in the same way as it would approach one based on article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
McDonald and others v McDonald: [2014] EWCA Civ 1049; [2014] WLR (D) 336
‘Where a private landlord sought a possession order under section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988 the tenant could not resist the making of the order on the ground that it would be disproportionate under article 8.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In O’Brien v Bristol CC [2014] EWHC 2423 (Admin) [heard at the RCJ instead of in the Bristol admin court? Not on Bailii yet but we have seen a transcript], a range of issues arose out of the council’s decision to seek and obtain a possession order of an unauthorised encampment below the M5 at Avonmouth. The real aim of this judicial review, though, was not the possession order, but the council’s decision not to allow the O’Brien’s and their four caravans to return to the temporary transit site, which had available pitches. The O’Briens had stayed at that temporary site for the allowable period (13 weeks) and had been entitled to overstay on the ground of exceptional circumstances for a period. They then moved off and ended up at the M5 site. The O’Briens had also made a homelessness application and been offered interim bricks and mortar accommodation. The council’s officer had considered whether to allow the O’Briens back on to the transit site but decided against it for what would have been an indefinite period and which would have set a precedent for allowing extended stays in breach of planning controls. The O’Briens’ were unsuccessful on the merits although Burnett J did give permission to bring the judicial review’
NearlyLegal, 19th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘English landlords that secured deposits from fixed-term tenants would not have to re-comply with the deposit protection rules if that tenancy later ‘rolls over’ to become a statutory periodic tenancy or if the landlord enters into a new tenancy with the same tenant for the same premises, the UK government has proposed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘We covered the case of Beech v Birmingham CC in the High Court here. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard on 11/6/2014 and judgement was given on 17/6/2014.
I will not repeat the facts here except to say that the appeal was narrowed down to only two grounds of challenge: namely that the notice to quit was procured from the late Mrs Warren under undue influence from the housing officer, Mr Pumphrey, and that it had been given when no formal mental capacity assessment had been carried out, in breach of the Code of Practice issued under s.42(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the ‘public law defence’).’
NearlyLegal, 22nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025