Chaudhary v Chaudhary (not on bailii yet but on lawtel) is something of a puzzle, which hopefully will be solved when we see the full transcript (hint, hint). It may be important, but it’s a little early to say. The one thing about it that isn’t a puzzle is that it is yet another case in which there is a family breakdown; here the dispute is between a stepmother (it’s simpler to use the abbreviations in the lawtel report: “M”) and stepson (“S”). S bought a property, which was registered in his sole name. His Dad (“F”) and M put £5k towards the purchase. After F’s death, M continued to … Read the full post
The Regulatory Committee of the HCA has published Protecting Social Housing Assets in a More Diverse Sector, which is styled as a discussion paper, but which also contains some thought-provoking questions about how regulation can and should work in a much diversified, increasingly risky and entrepreneurial social housing domain. We are working in an environment which is almost unrecognisable from what it was in the 1990s and perhaps even just a few years ago. This creates regulatory dilemmas about how best to protect assets in the most proportionate manner (a familiar dilemma, and one which does not seem to have been particularly affected by the financial crash, one might … Read the full post
In El-Dinnaoui v Westminster CC  EWCA Civ 231, the Court of Appeal found that the offer of a flat on the 16th floor of a block to a household which contained a person with fear of heights was perverse. The offer of accommodation was “in the teeth” of the medical evidence. How could the case have got this far, one might well ask? At heart in this case, there is something interesting about the reception by homelessness officers about medical evidence (see comments at the end). The final point by way of introduction is a hat-tip to Debra Wilson at Anthony Gold who, I’m told, took Mr El-Dinnaoui’s appeal pro … Read the full post
While my NL colleagues are reporting hard law and dealing with lots of important stuff, with so much more to come, I have but a mere puff to offer for a Friday afternoon. It’s about the new government website to which departments, including DCLG, have (or are) migrating. It’s just woeful and has really annoyed the NL team – I’m up for it to be put on the naughty step but have neither the writing skill nor the jpeg to do so. In the current climate when so many more litigants in person are anticipated, it’s really important that all the information on it is right, up-to-date and accurate; and … Read the full post
According to Cameron, there is a need to restrict the right to judicial review to ensure the country’s economic competitiveness. As he put it, judicial review should, therefore, cost more, have shorter deadlines, and fewer rights of appeal. This is so that “people think twice about time wasting” . As the MoJ put it:
The number of [JR] applications has rocketed in the past three decades, from 160 in 1974 to 11,200 last year but the proportion of successful applications is very low. In 2011 only one in six applications determined were granted permission to be heard.
Cameron also had a pop at Equality Impact Assessments calling them nothing more … Read the full post
In R(Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 3070 (Admin) [not on Baili yet, but apparently on Lawtel], the Divisional Court signalled its intention to get much tougher on out of hours administrative court applications to the duty Judge. The (unnamed) solicitor was basically called to explain to the court why the reasons for urgency had not been completed. It’s not a housing case, but it is worth repeating what was said by the President of the Divisional Court because it underlines the significance of the new N463 and out of hours form:
7. … If any firm fails to provide the information required on the
Maybe I’ve been doing this job too long but there are some things which just seem so obvious to me. I know that the common intention constructive trust is really interesting – empirically as well as in law – but you can’t just jump straight in.
Pankhania v Chandegra  EWCA Civ 1438 is, I’m afraid, a pretty obvious case which should never have been resisted; that it got to the Court of Appeal is an object lesson to advocates and judges not to jump straight in with your fancy arguments about constructive trusts. Why? Because, although the judge proceeded to consider the case largely around the law on constructive … Read the full post