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
‘When a notice is served under Section 8 Housing Act 1988, how precise does the wording of the ground(s) under which possession will be sought have to be?’
NearlyLegal, 18th May 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This briefing note seeks to explain the main changes to anti-social behaviour injunctions (ASBIs), anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), possession claims relating to anti-social behaviour under the Housing Acts of 1985 and 1988, and related remedies brought in by Parts 1 to 6 of the Act1 as far as they concern local housing authorities (LHAs) and private registered providers (PRPs).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th April 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘This is a slightly surprising case involving a judicial review of refusal of permission to appeal.’
NearlyLegal, 11th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Conventionally, we’ve thought that a counterclaim would have to be raised before a possession order, or the complex and fraught option of applying to set aside the possession order would have to be followed, even assuming there was actually any basis for such an application. But there appears to be a solid argument based on Court of Appeal precedent to suggest otherwise.’
NearlyLegal, 9th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘There is still no definitive answer as to how art 8 of the ECHR will engage between private individuals in an action by a private landowner to recover possession from ab initio trespassers who have unlawfully set up home on his land. However, there has been a step forward in the Manchester Ship Canal case.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th March 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Mr Armour lived with his 14 year old daughter in a flat owned by Southend under an introductory tenancy. Mr Armour was accused of anti-social behaviour, including verbally abusing neighbours and contractors, and turning on the electricity when contractors were working causing one to suffer an electric shock.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th March 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Tenant evictions are a thorny subject. On one side tenants say they are often evicted illegally, without reason, and far too often. On the other, landlords complain that ousting troublesome tenants is expensive and time-consuming. We’ve looked at two evictions – one from a landlord’s point of view and the other from the tenant’s, and offered a guide to your rights – whichever side you are on.’
The Guardian, 5th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch). The Chancery Court has ruled that Convention rights may be engaged in disputes between private landowners and trespassers, thereby making it incumbent on the court under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to balance the trespassers’ rights under Article 8 against the landowner’s rights under Article 1 Protocol 1.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In one sense, the possession claim in Manchester Ship Canal Developments v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 645 (Ch) follows a fairly predictable course. The Defendants were a group of activists who had set up camp on Barton Moss Lane, Manchester, in protest at the drilling program being undertaken by a company, Igas Energy plc. The Claimants had granted Igas a licence to drill on the land nearby and the protest was intended to deter the controversial fracking process which the activists feared would ensue.’
NearlyLegal, 16th March 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 published
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024