Tag Archive for 'public law defence'

Page 2 of 4

Oh Brave New World

By NL on 30/04/2010. 0 Comments

Eastland Homes Partnership Limited v Sandra Whyte 2010 EWHC 695 (QB)

Following Weaver v L&Q and McIntyre v Gentoo, here is a clear indication of the brave new world of public law in which RSLs (sorry, PRHPs) find themselves. It is also an interesting and useful example of a public law defence (gateway b) in action and raises the issue of ‘starter tenancies’ as deployed by PRHPs.

Ms Whyte had a starter tenancy from Eastland Homes. This is an assured shorthold tenancy for six months, after which , typically and according to the agreement in this case, it will either be extended for a further six months or the … Read the full post

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

Continued incompatibility

By NL on 11/02/2010. 15 Comments

Readers with a long memory (relative to the general standards of the 21st century) will recall that there was a finding in Connors v UK (2004) that the law that meant that travellers on Local Authority sites could be evicted without the court overseeing procedural safeguards was declared to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Such readers will no doubt also recall that the reason Mr Doherty in Doherty v Birmingham CC (July 2008) was refused a declaration of incompatibility (gateway A) by the House of Lords was solely because the objectionable legislation was to be replaced through the Housing and Regeneration bill, as it then … Read the full post

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

Lord Neuberger on housing law

By NL on 01/12/2009. 5 Comments

The UKSC – an excellent blog (albeit technically and practically horrible to use) which is dedicated to the doings and ins and outs of the Supreme Court – has a interesting post on Lord Neuberger’s keynote to the SHLA conference. I wonder how the SHLA audience reacted to his observations that Weaver “leaves us with the position that RSLs are likely to be open to HRA challenges when they terminate tenancies.”

Also of note, Lord Neuberger observes:

that the decision of the Court of Human Rights in Cosic v Croatia appears to be inconsistent with the most recent House of Lords authority, Doherty v Birmingham City Council [2008] UKHL 57

… Read the full post

Posted in assured-tenancy, Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers and Possession. Tags: , , .

Central Beds v Taylor – Supreme Court permission refused

By NL on 09/11/2009. 1 Comment

Central Bedfordshire Council v Taylor & Ors

We’ve just heard that permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in Central Beds v Taylor has been refused. Our note of the Court of Appeal case is here. This was surely a chance for the Supreme Court to revisit Kay and Doherty in the light of the Connors and after ECtHR decisions, aka the great quarter pounder v Royale with cheese issue. Lords Walker, Mance and Collins held that:

“the application did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time.”

One now wonders how the application … Read the full post

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

Of Car Parks, Caravans and Councillor's commitments

By NL on 13/09/2009. 0 Comments

The City & Council of Swansea v Christine Joyce (and others) Cardiff District Registry, Chancery Division 31 March 2009 7CF30099

This is an example of a post Doherty public law defence at first hearing, and one that succeeded where an alternative defence of estoppel didn’t.

Two Traveller families, the Joyces and the McDonaghs, had been camped on the car park at Swansea Enterprise Park, on various parts over the years (about 20). The car park was used as an overflow for events at the nearby Liberty Stadium. The Council had the freehold for the Enterprise Park. In May 2007, the Council sought to get the Joyces and McDonaghs to move … Read the full post

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

Not seriously arguable

By NL on 13/07/2009. 5 Comments

Another case on post-Doherty public law defences was handed down on Friday. Stokes v London Borough of Brent [2009] EWHC 1426 (QB) concerned an appeal summary possession order made against a traveller in unlicenced occupation of a plot on a Brent traveller’s site.

Ms Stokes had lived at her mother’s plot on the site and had been on the waiting list. She moved onto a plot which contained a site office on part of it, but was not used as a caravan site, in about January 2007. In April 2007 Brent wrote to say that her trespass would not be tolerated. However, in October 2007, Brent wrote to say … Read the full post

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

Kay re-stated

By NL on 23/06/2009. 1 Comment

And the question of what Doherty actually means rumbles on.

Central Bedfordshire Council v Taylor & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 613 was the Court of Appeal hearing of an appeal from a Circuit Judge’s decision to make an outright possession order and, in particular, to refuse to make findings of fact as a basis for an appeal based on Article 6. The appeal had a complicated history, the original decision was made before Doherty in the Lords was handed down and the grounds for appeal prepared in anticipation of the Lords decision, then revised afterwards from being based in the minority decision in Kay to argue a Doherty gateway B … 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