Sarah Salmon looks at the decision in Harris v Hounslow LBC  EWCA Civ 1476 where the Court of Appeal dismissed the tenant’s appeal against a possession order made on mandatory grounds under the Housing Act 1985. The tenant had failed at first instance in his public law defence challenging the review procedure adopted by […]
John McLinden QC led Toby Bishop in successfully opposing the continuation and restoration of an interim injunction that had been obtained without notice. BEL complained that in the course of a substantial renovation of its premises, NWHUKL, a hotelier was unlawfully preventing it from using its easement through NWHUKL’s property to access its customer toilets . […]
The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. (Ayn Rand Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1966) Even those Claimants not motivated solely by evil may be expected […]
PW has a grievance with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council. No one at the council is quite clear what it is although it seems to relate to a homelessness claim. He also seems to have disputes with Surrey County Council and his local MP, (and maybe others). He has chosen Reigate & Banstead to be his main point of complaint.
Sarah Salmon, barrister at Field Court and member of the SHLA committee, will chair the session.
The panel will discuss the remedies available to social landlords dealing with anti-social behaviour and provide top tips from seasoned practitioners. You will have an opportunity to share your experiences with other SHLA members and put questions to the panel. So, register now to avoid disappointment.
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?