24/06/2008

L&Q v Weaver flash

Judgment just out

Weaver (R) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2008] EWHC 1377 (Admin)

Full notes tomorrow, but the headline is:

L&Q is a public authority in its housing function for the purposes of Judicial Review.

Use of ground 8 possession claims is not a breach of legitimate expectation.

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts.

8 Comments

  1. the chief

    Had you at least had a lunchtime pint before you wrote this?

    Reply
  2. housinganger

    I thought it wasn’t a breach on the facts of the case as it appears L and Q might have actually tried to recover the arrears before possession proceedings :)

    Still I’m thinking about beer by the sea this evening so probably wrong.

    Reply
  3. Nearly Legal

    @the chief. Eh? Very rushed, admittedly.
    @housinganger. On my very quick reading, the suggestion seems to be that L&Q’s terms and conditions did not give rise to a legitimate expectation, or at least an enforceable one. para 85. I need to have a close look but notes will have to wait to tomorrow.

    Reply
  4. J

    I cannot begin to explain how pleased I am with this decision!

    Reply
  5. the chief

    @Nearly Legal: No, I just meant that you’d said the case would make some nice pub reading so I was hoping for a beer-fuelled rant. Turns out not everybody works the same way as me. I’ll get me coat.

    Reply
  6. Ethan

    Its like a speeding bullet!! I received the eflash for Weaver, and think “Noooo NL couldn’t have got something on his blog already – it is barely past lunch”…how wrong I was!

    Reply
  7. Nearly Legal

    @J. You and me both. Oh yes. Not good for Ms Weaver, but bloody fantastic for the rest of us. (Why only plead legitimate expectation? Odd at first glance.)

    @the chief – ah, Alle ist klar. I meant pub this evening, hence report tomorrow. And many thanks for the twitter heads up.

    @Ethan. Heh. I can’t keep that up any more, I’m telling you. But this was a big case. I had to get something up, because there will be no report till late tomorrow now.

    Reply
  8. housinganger

    Why only plead legitimate expectation? Odd at first glance

    That’s what confused me but them it’s very easy to confuse me.

    In regard to 90 it would have been interesting to see what LJ Richards would have done if he had found that they had not pursued all reasonable alternatives. Ah well shall look forward to your write up and the many write ups in that are to come in different places!

    Reply

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.