Monthly Archive for July, 2008

Disrepair protocol costs

Birmingham City Council v Lee [2008] EWCA Civ 891 concerns claimant’s costs incurred while following the disrepair pre-action protocol.

It is not uncommon for a landlord to do repairs after an early notification letter, or letter of claim, but pre issue (not that common, but not uncommon). This leaves the claim as for damages only. Where repairs are outstanding, the small claims limit is £1000 in damages or cost of works. But a damages only claim hits the usual £5000 limit. There are the small claims unavailability of costs consequences, and there is no public funding for small claims. Thus, doing the repairs would often kill a disrepair claim. In … Read the full post

Notes on Doherty v Birmingham CC

So, Doherty (FC) (Appellant) and others v Birmingham City Council (Respondent) [2008] UK HL 57

Well, well, and once more for effect, well. This is a very interesting result indeed, although I use the word result in a non-definite kind of way.

The headline is simple enough, the case was remitted to the High Court for determination of the domestic judicial review issues raised as defence to possession. Court of Appeal overturned. The majority would also have made a declaration of incompatibility in regard to the Mobile Homes Act 1998, if the incompatibility had not already been removed by the passing of the Housing and Regeneration Act. Their Lordships declined … Read the full post

Aaargh

Started on Doherty, but on closer inspection, the Lords have also given me R (On The Application of M) (Fc) V Slough Borough Council and R (On The Application of Heffernan) (Fc) V The Rent Service to deal with, and possibly also Yeoman’s Row Management Limited and Another V Cobbe. All here.

Damn them, damn, damn, damn. Thankfully, the Court of Appeal held off handing down anything of interest – for here at least.… Read the full post

Doherty handed down – more later

Doherty (FC) (Appellant) and others v Birmingham City Council (Respondent) [2008] UK HL 57

That’s 79 pages of reading to do…

Children Act – 'requires accommodation'

This is a significant case on whether Social Services or Housing Departments have a duty to accommodate a homeless child and whether a s.20 Children Act duty arises.

G, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 877 was a case in which a 17 year old child, G, who was initially living with his mother following a successful asylum application, could no longer stay at that home. He presented to Southwark Social Services and after assessment, was referred to the HPU for accommodation under Part VII.

The issue in the judicial review and in this subsequent Court of Appeal hearing was the validity and … Read the full post

A modest proposal

October, new post qualification job and all, is going to be something of a crunch point for this blog. Time, which has been very tight for the last few months, is simply not going to be available to keep Nearly Legal going in the same way. There are three options that I can see:

1. Nearly Legal stops updating and the archive just sits here. Not a good option – I find the blog useful and interesting and I hope others do.

2. Things totter onwards at a much reduced rate. This would be difficult to keep up and means missing out useful content.

3. Nearly Legal becomes a collaborative … Read the full post

Incoming

The House of Lords is due to hand down judgment in Doherty v Birmingham tomorrow (30/7). This will include their Lordships’ first take on McCann v UK.

I’m aiming to have some sort of case note up by tomorrow night. It will be the start of a busy patch for judgments.… Read the full post



row of sheds footer image
4 pages