- Adverse possession(16)
- Community care(62)
- Housing law – All(1299)
- Mortgage possession(62)
- Tolerated trespasser(49)
- Trusts and Estoppel(42)
- Various (non-housing)(439)
- Get the Affordable L on When is an insurance premium reasonably incurred?
- Trouble out west – NearlyLegal | Current Awareness on Trouble out west
- Giles Peaker on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on deposits
- William Noad on Make do and mend: Undoing Superstrike on deposits
- DavBag on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Bill Heywood on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- CJ on Trouble out west
- Giles Peaker on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Joy Boyd on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
- Debbie on Reforming a bad policy, badly.
Visits in 2014278470
Author Archives: chief
Mohamoud v Birmingham CC  EWCA Civ 227
As all of our readers doubtless know, the way that decision making in homelessness cases works is something like this: a first decision is made by someone on behalf of a local housing authority; if that is in the applicant’s favour, all well and good; if it isn’t, the applicant can ask for a review; that review is carried out by someone else on behalf of the authority, who might overturn the original decision or who might confirm it; if they confirm it, the applicant can appeal to the county court.
Recognising that at the review stage it is quite possible that … Read the full post
Durrant v Avon & Somerset Constabulary  EWCA Civ 1624
This is not housing law, not even close, but is an important decision on procedure that follows on from Mitchell v News Group Newspapers. We covered that decision (see For Whom the Bell Tolls). This case confirms the reach of Mitchell and gives a vivid example of the new approach in action. As with Mitchell, it is a case that all civil practitioners need to be aware of.
Since 1 April 2013, CRP 3.9 on relief from sanctions has been in much shorter terms than before:
… Read the full post
“On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a
R (CN) v LB Lewisham; R (ZH) v Newham LBC  EWCA Civ 804
This is a very important decision from the summer. For some reason we haven’t got round to writing it up before now. In the meantime England have managed to retain (yay) and then lose (boo) the Ashes, so it just goes to show that there are worse things in the world than tardy blog writers.
The issue in the two cases is neatly stated by Kitchin LJ at :
… Read the full post
“The central issue on this appeal is whether the decisions in Manek and Desnousse continue to bind this court in the light of the decisions of the
Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd  UKUT 487 (LC)
Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd  UKUT 502 (LC)
Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd  UKUT 509 (LC)
No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd  UKUT 580 (LC)
Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd  UKUT 598 (LC)
Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd  UKUT 603 (LC)
Ninety Broomfield Road RTM Co Ltd v Triplerose Ltd (& 3 other cases)  UKUT 606 (LC)
The right to manage provisions in Commonhold and Leasehold Reform … Read the full post
Law can be expensive.
This is particularly so in relation to the process of law, i.e. the costs of going to the law. By this I mean things such as the court or tribunal fees, but particularly the costs of the lawyers. If you lose in civil litigation, the normal rule is that you’ve got to pay not just for your own lawyers, but for the other side’s too. Due to the way that costs are assessed and recovered, even the winner often has to foot the bill for some their own lawyers’ fees. It is fair to say that the general public doesn’t think too highly of the fees … Read the full post
We’ve all been there. Perhaps more frequently, litigants in person have been there (although hopefully not the same LiP over and over again). A warrant for possession is due to be executed the next day. It may even be the same day. The occupier has applied to a District Judge to suspend the warrant. The District Judge has, rightly or wrongly, dismissed that application. The occupier, understandably (even more so if the DJ fell into the “wrongly” category), wants to appeal that decision.
Now we know that such an appeal must be to a Circuit Judge. So far, so good. Many courts (and the number is growing) either have no … Read the full post