Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea  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
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  UKHL 13;  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 police … Read the full post
Just for a little bit of Friday fun, I bring you the news that friend of the blog Mike Weatherley MP has apparently joined forces with a well known chain of coffee houses to create a competition called ‘Rock The House’. The competition is aimed at unsigned bands and one of the prizes will be to play a live set at the House of Commons. The mind boggles, but details (complete with a quote from “Nietzche” (sic)), if that’s your bag, are here.
It seems fairly obvious to me that this will be a great opportunity for the blog’s nascent house band, The Naughty Steppers, to unleash … Read the full post
Gladysheva v Russia (App. No. 7097/10)
Courtesy of the always excellent ECHR blog, comes an interesting Strasbourg decision, particularly in relation to the question of just satisfaction. It has, regrettably, taken me ages to write this up. Any students who have had to write essays about it in the meantime clearly have sadistic tutors.
The facts of the case bear some similarity with Tuleshov v Russia, but there are a few differences and what is quite interesting about this case is what the ECtHR does about just satisfaction.
The basic facts are that Ms Gladysheva was a bona fide purchaser of a flat in Moscow. The previous owner … Read the full post
Francis v LB Southwark  EWCA Civ 1418
This was a brave attempt to try and get something out a local authority’s mistaken denial of a right to buy application, but it was not one which the Court of Appeal had any truck with.
Mr Francis was a tenant of the London Borough of Southwark. It seems that the course of his tenancy had not been a smooth one. Rent arrears would accrue, but eviction would be staved off. In March 2003 Mr F submitted a right to buy application in respect his flat on the Acorn Estate.
Southwark responded in September 2003, with a Housing Act 1985, s.124 notice … Read the full post
The number of letters published in The Guardian on the topic of the law on squatting has now reached two and can therefore be fairly described as an “exchange”.
We have already noted Mike Weatherley MP’s letter to The Guardian and I urge you all to read that post. It is a sensitive, sensible, passionate and highly informed piece of writing. What follows is almost certainly not. It should only be considered for a bit of weekend light relief, probably with a glass, or more, of wine to hand – it was certainly written that way.
With that caveat, our starting point has to be the letter published at … Read the full post
Zolotareva v Russia (App. No. 15003/04)
With a hat-tip to the Garden Court bulletin, here is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the enforcement of an eviction. Ms Zolotareva lived in a municipally owned flat with her son, ex-daughter-in-law and grandchild. She thought that could no longer all live together (I refer you to the “ex” in the last sentence and possibly also the “in-law”) and commenced proceedings for the eviction of her son’s ex-wife. She in turn counter-claimed, asking the court to order that they all get rehoused elsewhere.
The court sided with the ex-wife and ordered not only that she and her … Read the full post