Marshall Dixon and others v Wellington Close Management Ltd [2012] UKUT 95 (LC) is, so far as I can tell, the first Lands Tribunal/Upper Tribunal case on s.37, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. As you’ll know, the 1987 Act gives the LVT power to vary residential leases. It can do this if the lease is defective in some way (s.35) or if the requisite majority of leaseholders agree and n0-more than the specified minority object (s.37 – a sort of qualified majority voting basis). The key provision is s.37(5), which provides that, in a building with more than eight leases, an application “shall only be made” if it is not … Read the full post
Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category
Dixon v UK has now reached a conclusion in the ECHR with an Order made on 21/2/12 removing the case from the lists under Art 37 (1)(c) of the Convention.
This Order is the Court’s response to a unilateral declaration made by the UK government on 8/11/11 accepting that Mr Dixon had not had the benefit of a proportionality exercise in line with the principles set out in McCann, Pinnock and Powell and that the High Court’s obiter findings on proportionality were insufficient to guarantee Mr Dixon’s Article 8 rights. The UK therefore offered £3000 by way of just satisfaction, costs and expenses.
Despite Mr Dixon’s argument that had Art … Read the full post
Babenko v Ukraine Appn No 68726/10 of 4/1/12 is an ECHR Chamber decision which looks at the relationship between an applicant’s right to social housing from the state and Art 1 of the ECHR First Protocol.
The Applicant was a WWII veteran who registered in 2004 for social housing with the local housing executive. By 2007 he was still on the waiting list for an apartment and he began court proceedings, alleging that the Council had breached Art 46 of the Ukrainian Housing Code by failing to provide him with housing.
Art 46 is a curious amalgam of what we would understand to be homelessness and allocations law: it states … Read the full post
Keep your eyes out for Khela (by his LPA receiver) v Dainter, Birmingham County Court, 29.2.12, which HHJ McKenna has just transfered into the Court of Appeal.
It’s an appeal against a s.21 possession order made under the accelerated procedure in which Ms Dainter argues that she should have been allowed to raise an art.8 defence. The DJ held that there was no need to consider personal circumstances / proportionality but granted permission to appeal. HHJ McKenna, noting that the interaction between art.8 and the private sector had been left open in Pinnock, has sent the case to the CA for them to have a go with.
More … Read the full post
R (McDonagh) v Hackney LBC , Administrative Court, February 15, 2012 [not on bailii - taken from a Lawtel note] concerned a claim for judicial review brought by a traveller against Hackney’s policy regarding the allocation of its caravan pitches for travellers.
In June 2011, there were only 27 residential caravan pitches within Hackney and only 456 residential sites in London as a whole [not included in the Lawtel note, but reported in Read the full post
No prizes for guessing what I was listening to when I decided to write this. I bring you two important cases from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) about sub-let fees and administration charges:Holding & Management (Solitaire Ltd) v Norton and other appeals [2012] UKUT 1 and Re: Bradmoss Ltd [2012] UKUT 3 (LC). In all cases:
(a) the tenant sought to sub-let their flat; and,
(b) the leases prohibited this without the consent of the landlord/management company.
In some of the leases, there was a further express provision requiring the tenant to pay the costs of the consent and/or a registration fee. In all cases, the landlord/management company sought … Read the full post
But, like John Lee Hooker, I need money. It’s one of the reasons (a) I keep a close eye on costs cases and (b) I don’t get involved in the never-ending attempt by law students to get us to teach them about constructive trusts on this blog. Plantation Wharf Management Co Ltd v Jackson and another is a case that falls under the first category. No students here.
Whether a lease allows for recovery of legal costs is not usually a straight-forward proposition. in Sella House Ltd v Mears [1989] 1 EGLR 65, the Court of Appeal indicated that, in general terms, one would need to find a clause … Read the full post
Recent Comments