We are delighted that Henry Pargeter joins us as a new tenant today. Henry’s practice covers all family law proceedings: public and private law children proceedings, financial provision as well as emergency protection orders and applications under the Hague Convention.
LexisNexis publishes a case analysis of Fatolahzadeh v LB Barnet, in which Genevieve Screeche-Powell acted for the local authority that successfully defended a section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 appeal brought by a homeless applicant. The case raised important points of principle about whether parliament intended an alleged breach of the ‘new’ Housing Act 1996, s 189A duties totally invalidate any subsequent decision to fulfilling its duty to secure suitable accommodation and the role of the s. 202 review process in curing alleged deficiencies.
In Stenner v Teignbridge DC [2025] UKUT 204 (LC) the Applicant claimed a right to store boats on a small part of the Respondent Council’s car park during the winter months. The application was confined to the small area of land said to be subject to the right and for a limited period, 1st October to 31st May. The FTT (Colin Green) rejected the application on the basis that the ouster principle was engaged and that the right claimed effectively denied the servient owner any reasonable use of the land subject to the right during the period in respect of which it was claimed.
We are delighted that we have received 12 individual rankings in the Chambers and Partners 2026 guide, which includes 3 new members who have been ranked. Additionally, we continue to be ranked as a set for our social housing law team. Thank you to all our clients for your support during the year and particular thanks to everyone who gave feedback on our barristers.
Genevieve Screeche-Powell acted for the local authority that successfully defended a s. 204 Housing Act 1996 appeal brought by a homeless applicant. This is the 1st time that the Court of Appeal has had to consider the nature and impact of the s. 189A Housing Act duties on the lawful performance of the s.195 prevention duty in section 204 appeal proceedings.
Barry McAlinden and Rebecca Davies will deliver a webinar for Family Law Week subscribers on s.37 Children Act and local authority intervention in private law children cases. They will discuss the court’s powers under section 37 Children Act and when the court can use its power to direct a local authority to investigate a child’s circumstances.
We are delighted that Andrew Burrell and James Fowler join us as tenants, after completing pupillage with us.
Jonathan Pennington Legh represented the successful applicant, resisting set aside and permission to appeal in residential property proceedings. The respondent sought to challenge the decision on the grounds that he lacked capacity. The Tribunal refused both the application to set aside and the second respondent’s request for permission to appeal.
Is there a difference in how the courts approach piercing the corporate veil in matrimonial proceedings as compared with non-matrimonial proceedings? Case law now establishes that the answer is definitively ‘no’. Jonathan Cowen and Christopher Stirling highlight the points practitioners need to be aware of given the limited power to pierce the corporate veil.
Francis Hoar acted pro bono for the appellant in the Court of Appeal, in an appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a judicial review into a local council’s decision to build a shared driveway without seeking her consent: Anwar v Ealing London Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 813.