Publications

Now that the Court of Appeal has given judgment and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in Khan v Khan v D'Aubigny, Sarah McKeown revisits her article about the service of documents required before a valid s.21 notice can be given and whether s.7 Interpretation Act 1978 (and a relatively commonly-used form of wording in a tenancy agreement relating to deemed service) applies to the service of certain documents.

Keith Chipato successfully defended a tenant in a possession claim under the accelerated procedure. The case centred on whether a landlord’s failure to provide a gas safety certificate before the tenant’s occupation invalidated a subsequent section 21 notice.

Sarah McKeown discusses D’Aubogny v Khan & Anor which raised the issue of service of documents before a valid s.21 notice can be given. Landlord and tenant advisers need to be considering the difference between 'deemed' vs 'actual' service. The Court of Appeal is going to consider the point further along with whether s.7 Interpretation Act 1978 applies.

Clare Cullen considers a judicial review concerning indirect discrimination and applicants who have a medical support animal. The case is a reminder to local authorities and homeless applicants that judicial review will often be refused if there is an alternative remedy.

Aristide Hoang-Brown considers the impact of  Wigan Borough Council v Lovett [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 - a year since the Court of Appeal intervened to provide much-needed guidance about how courts should approach penalties for contempt for breaches of anti-social behaviour injunctions made under Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Can a court lawfully order the parties to court proceedings to engage in a non-court based resolution process such as an internal complaints procedure operated by a local authority? If so, in what circumstances? These were the important issues explored by the Court of Appeal in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.

The Supreme Court in R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon has unanimously held that general funding pressures are not an excuse for non-compliance with a local authority's duty under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide suitable accommodation to a homeless individual. However, the court should consider a local authority's resources and extent of its housing portfolio when deciding whether to grant a mandatory order rather than some other relief.

The issue of how local authorities deal with homeless 16–17-year-olds who do not want to be accommodated as ‘looked after children’ under s20 of the Children Act 1989 was recently raised again in R(W) v LB Lambeth. Joshua Swirsky acted for the local authority in the case.