Monthly Archive for March, 2010

Page 2 of 4

Family Feuds and Estoppel

By David Smith on 25/03/2010. 0 Comments

Cook v Thomas & Thomas [2010] EWCA Civ 227

This case was well describd by the Court of Appeal as “a most unfortunate and regrettable dispute”.

The facts were as follows. C is the sole legal owner of a small ara of farmland with farmhouse in Wales by survivorship from her husband. It is currently also occupied by her daughter and her husband, Mr & Mrs T. Prior to her marriage Mrs T (or Miss T as she then was) helped C’s husband to farm cattle for milk on the land, a small local business carried on in his spare time, and also operated a small riding stables. Her marriage … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note and Trusts and Estoppel.

Estoppel and Laches in Looe

By Dave on 24/03/2010. 0 Comments

Lester v Woodgate [2010] EWCA Civ 199 is a wonderful example of a neighbour dispute getting out of hand (so out of hand, in fact, that indemnity costs were awarded against the Claimant, in the Truro County Court,  in “an exemplary use of the power to mark the court’s disapproval of the use of litigation to intimidate”, Sedley LJ at [53]).  It concerns a strip of land between a couple of houses in Looe, Cornwall (a nice place where I’ve been known to holiday, but will stay away from the locals in the future).  In 1980, a previous claim was settled between the parties’ predecessors in title allowing the Claimants’ … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note and Trusts and Estoppel.

Permission 2 – given: EU child and Homeless duty

By NL on 22/03/2010. 0 Comments

Lekpo-Bozua v Hackney LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 222 [Not on Bailii]

Ms L-B had applied to Hackney as homeless. Hackney accepted that she was eligible, homeless, not intentionally homeless and in priority need, because her niece, a child, lived with her. However, while Ms L-B was a UK citizen, her niece was an EU national. Hackney contended that this meant the niece was a restricted person within the meaning of section 184(7) Housing Act 1996:

so that its duty to re-house her was the more limited duty imposed by section 193(2) and (7)(AA) of the Act. That meant that its duty to the applicant continued only until she accepted or

… Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: , .

Permission 1 – refused: date of notice

By NL on 22/03/2010. 5 Comments

Elias v Spencer [2010] EWCA Civ 246 [Not on Bailii yet]

This was a permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal hearing.

The issue was the date given in a s.21 Housing Act 1988 notice on an assured shorthold tenancy. The notice stated that possession was required:

After: 22ND NOVEMBER 2008 or,
if this notice would otherwise be ineffective, after the date being the earliest date not earlier than two months after the date of service of this notice when shall expire a period of the assured shorthold tenancy.

The issue was that a period of the tenancy ended on 21 November 2008. The tenant, Mr S, argued that … Read the full post

Posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: , , .

Collective enfranchisement and anti-avoidance

By J on 20/03/2010. 0 Comments

Earl Cadogan and another v Panagopoulos and another [2010] EWHC 422 (Ch) concerns the anti-avoidance provisions in s.19, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It’s quite a detailed case and, if enfranchisement is something you’re interested in, you’ll need to read it carefully. Since it isn’t *pure* housing law, I’m going to deal with it quite shortly.

The respondent tenants sought to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement and served an initial notice under s.13, 1993 Act which was duly registered with the Land Registry. It appears that the landlord agreed that the tenants had the right to enfranchise but disputed their proposed price, such that the tenants … Read the full post

Posted in Uncategorized.

I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too! Two*

By NL on 17/03/2010. 2 Comments

Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 265

This is probably the biggest single week for dog-related possession claims ever. At this rate, the RSPCA will have to open a housing practice.

The brief facts are at para 1 of the Court of Appeal judgment:

Alfie is a Jack Russell/Border Collie cross. He lives with the appellant in her one bedroom flat at 1, Itchen Court, Crombie Close, Lovedean in Hampshire. Unfortunately the appellant’s tenancy agreement does not allow dogs to be kept on the premises. The respondents’, Drum Housing Association Ltd. her landlords, told her Alfie would have to leave. When he did not they took proceedings

… Read the full post

Posted in Assured Shorthold tenancy, FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: , , , , .

I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!

By Francis Davey on 17/03/2010. 0 Comments

Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 228 is a decision that was decided on its facts, but since it is the first example of a claim for judicial review against a housing co-operative, I took an interest.

The facts are that Mr Joseph was a tenant of Nettleton Road Housing association. Nettleton Road Housing is a fully mutual housing co-operative. This means that its tenants can be neither secure, assured or (for those in residence for a long time) protected by the Rent Acts. The thinking being that a co-op, being run by its members, can be relied on to act fairly towards the generality of … Read the full post

Posted in Possession and Uncategorized. Tags: , , , .
row of sheds footer image
4 pages