Tag Archive for 'public law defence'

Brave New World or Same Old Story

By chief on 04/11/2010. 28 Comments

Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45 (Supreme Court pdf & BAILII links)

Whenever a battle weary group of housing lawyers gets together, conversation inevitably turns (after the routine complaints about the less congenial DJs) to the thorny issue of which is the most important housing law case of all. While bizarre to the outsider, this ritual actually takes the form of a Mornington Crescent-style game, in which the aim is to get to Street v Mountford before somebody plays Puhlhofer and ruins the whole thing. The route to get there varies, although it will normally take in Awua, Pereira, Runa Begum, Din v Wandsworth… Read the full post

Posted in ASB, FLW case note, Housing law - All, Introductory and Demoted tenancies and Possession. Tags: , , , , , , .

Pinnock forthcoming…

By NL on 16/10/2010. 2 Comments

It appears that the Supreme Court judgment in Manchester CC v Pinnock is due to be handed down on 3 November. Anticipation runs wild, particularly to see what the response, if any, is to Kay v UK.… Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All, Introductory and Demoted tenancies and Possession. Tags: , , , .

Set-aside or Appeal?

By NL on 28/09/2010. 2 Comments

Islington LBC v Cecil and Grace Markland, Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court, 17/07/2010

The issue of whether a first hearing in a possession claim could be properly considered to be a trial came up in Forcelux Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 – our report here. The Court of Appeal held that, with possible exceptions, the first hearing was not a trial, and a decision at first hearing could be set aside under the case management powers in CPR rule 3.

This County Court appeal case is interesting as it raises the question of where the boundaries of the exceptions in Forcelux v Binnie may be.

Briefly, … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: , , .

Kay v UK – A royale quarterpounder?

By Dave on 25/09/2010. 12 Comments

Introduction

Sorry for the delay in getting this post up, the delay is partly due to work but, more importantly, we’ve been arguing between ourselves as to how best to deal with it. Frankly, we can’t agree on what the case actually means and what the possible effects are. So we’ve done this as a co-authored post, with individual writers making comments, as set out below. Dave takes credit for the background and introductory material.

Background

Regular readers will no doubt be aware of the background to the case.  It really goes back to Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2001] 1 AC 406, in which the House of … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers and Possession. Tags: , , , , , .

“Responding to Human Rights Judgments”, or then again, not.

By NL on 08/08/2010. 0 Comments

The latest Government response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report 2009/10 has been released. The PDF of the response is available here. This is the response of the current Government and they make clear that it is to a report prepared under the previous government. But in terms of the actual response, I suspect this makes little difference, save perhaps on Connors.

Of interest to housing lawyers are the JCHR findings and the Government response on McCann and Kay v UK, Connors and implementation of s.318 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, and Schedule 15 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in relation to the incompatibility in Morris … Read the full post

Posted in FLW article, Homeless, Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers and Possession. Tags: , , , , .

Well, You Needn’t*

By NL on 15/07/2010. 10 Comments

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Limited (Poplar Harca) v Stephen Howe [2010] EWHC 1745 (QB)

When we reported on Lana Wilson v London Borough of Harrow [2010] EWHC 1574 (QB) two weeks ago, we noted that another application for permission to appeal on the issue of the rule in LB of Hammersmith and Fulham v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 was underway. And here it is. There is also an appeal on a dismissed public law defence, which raises a number of issues.

Briefly, Mr Howe and his then wife were joint secure tenants of Tower Hamlets. The property was transferred to Poplar Harca, at which point Mr … Read the full post

Posted in assured-tenancy, FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: , , , , .

Delays, Public Law Defences and Suspended Orders

By NL on 11/07/2010. 6 Comments

London Borough of Brent v Corcoran & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 774

While we wait for the Supreme Court decision in Pinnock, which was heard last week, it seems that the Court of Appeal is determined to set practical limits on the operation of the public law defence. In this case, Corcoran and O’Donnell – the Appellants, were granted permission to appeal, but:

The only reason we granted permission is that we considered it important to make it absolutely clear that public law attacks of the technical and over-theoretical sort advanced here have no merit whatsoever in this sort of case.

The case also raises issues about the Court’s discretion … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers and Possession. Tags: , , , .
row of sheds footer image
4 pages