I don’t like reg.8, no no… I love it

Mohamoud v Birmingham CC [2014] 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

For Whom the Bell Tolls, Pt 2

Durrant v Avon & Somerset Constabulary [2013] 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:

“On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a

Read the full post

Out of order

R (CN) v LB Lewisham; R (ZH) v Newham LBC [2013] 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 [2]:

“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

Read the full post

Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right (To Manage)

Fairhold Mercury Ltd v HQ (Block 1) Action Management Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 487 (LC)
Fairhold (Yorkshire) Ltd v Trinity Wharf (SE16) RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 502 (LC)
Assethold Ltd v 7 Sunny Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 509 (LC)
No.1 Deansgate (Residential) Ltd v No.1 Deansgate RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 580 (LC)
Pineview Ltd v 83 Crampton Street RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 598 (LC)
Assethold Ltd v 13-24 Romside Place RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 603 (LC)
Ninety Broomfield Road RTM Co Ltd v Triplerose Ltd (& 3 other cases) [2013] UKUT 606 (LC)

The right to manage provisions in Commonhold and Leasehold Reform … Read the full post

It cost you how much?

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

Urgent appeals in warrant suspension cases

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

Deja Vu All Over Again

Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWCA Civ 982

This was an appeal against a decision that a homelessness applicant was not eligible for assistance. It’s been on my blogging to-do list since July, for which I can only apologise. The appeal raised some unusual and interesting issues.

We’ve met the applicant, Dr Konodyba, a couple of times before. Most recently, RBKC succeeded in getting an ex parte interim injunction discharged for material non disclosure. More importantly, in the context of this appeal, she has already been to the Court of Appeal once before. It is fair to say that that trip did not end … Read the full post

Any answers?


The April edition of Legal Action brings news that Hurst v UK has settled. As will be seen from the ECtHR’s Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties Hurst involved a secure tenant who murdered a neighbour, the applicant’s son, during the course of possession proceedings. Ms Hurst brought proceedings in the domestic courts, which reached their conclusion in R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner [2007] UKHL 13; [2007] 2 AC 189. Those proceedings were concerned with the duties of a coroner, particularly where the death had occurred before the Human Rights Act 1998 had come into force.

Ms Hurst had also commenced civil proceedings against the … Read the full post