When is an Appeal “brought” for the purposes of section 204(2) of the Housing Act 1996 – the importance of filing the grounds of appeal and, if necessary of properly explaining and evidencing the reasons why it was not possible to file an Appellant’s notice and grounds of appeal within the 21 day time limit […]
Whitty v London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The County Court sitting at Central London. 20th March 2017. For some time the Court has been issuing standard directions for the disposal of housing act appeals to ensure that matters of such significance are dealt with efficiently and to reduce the backlog. This case demonstrates when the court says there should be compliance with court orders it means it, as the Appellant discovered to his peril.
There have been a number of cases in the Court of Appeal where the use of the phrase ‘not a realistic option’ in a judgment given at the final hearing of a care case, has led to permission to appeal a decision being granted. It is suggested that this phrase only should be used with extreme caution, either by advocates or by judges.
Toby Bishop appeared for the successful respondent to the appeal in Pembury –v- Panzer. The court was considering whether the standard CPR 17.2 test applied, or the higher threshold of CPR 17.4.
Toby Bishop appeared for the successful landlord in Solomon –v- Dawn, a dispute about the effect of the LR 2002 on notices given under the LRHUDA 1993. The issues were: a) does s.7(3) LRA 2002 validate an ineffective s.42 LRHUDA 1993 notice, upon registration of the recipient as the landlord? and b) was there a general prohibition on the landlord relying on its failure to register in opposing new leases?
We are delighted to announce the arrival of Sarah Salmon to Field Court Chambers. Sarah’s expertise extends to all areas of housing and landlord and tenant, local government and the public law aspects of housing law.
Ruth Cabeza appeared in the high Court representing the parents of a terminally ill eight month old baby, in circumstances where they did not agree with the decision of Doctors at Great Ormond Street.
Eirwen Pierrot summarises the Supreme Court’s important decision this week in Paulley v FirstGroup plc, concerning the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Practitioners should be alert to issues that may arise in cases where honour-based violence is considered a risk by the local authority, particularly when forced marriage is considered to be a real possibility.
In this appeal against placement orders made in respect of two children, the Court explored the challenges facing first instance judges in giving ex tempore judgments in care proceedings in the context of the guidance handed down in Re B-S  EWCA Civ 1146.