Weaver v L&Q Newsflash

R(Weaver) v London & Quadrant [2009] EWCA Civ 587  is out (link to doc of the judgment thanks to Garden Court)

This was the Court of Appeal hearing of L&Q’s appeal of the High Court finding that it was a public authority in its housing function, subject to judicial review and the HRA.

Result – L&Q lost. They are indeed a public authority in their housing function.

But there is a lot in the detail – our full report to come.

So… House of Lords anyone?

[Edit. OK, one the one hand, the NL team are fighting over who gets to write up the detailed post, and on the other, we’re struggling with who has time to do it soonest. Maybe Friday evening, maybe Saturday, but it is coming, we promise.]

About Giles Peaker

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, and still is Nearly Legal on Google +.
Posted in assured-tenancy, Housing law - All, Possession and tagged , , , , , , .

0 Comments

    • Thanks S. I was going to upload the copy I had been sent. Bailii is not quite as quick as its usual excellent standards at the moment.

  1. JOY -but not unconfined. The Garden Court heading “Housing Association Tenants Protected” applies only to those eligible for, and able to pick their way through, the legal aid system. That’s if they can find a solicitor with the franchise, skills and motivation to take a case on. JR is beyond the reasonable scope of all but a very few litigants in person.

    Then there’s the Lords to come, no doubt…

  2. So I get that this means they’re potentially subject to JRs/Human Rights defences in possession proceedings
    (that’s correct isn’t it?)

    But – does this also mean that the allocations code of guidance now effects them and / or that their allocations policies can be JR’d?

    (hypothetically speaking)

    Cait

    • Cait,
      On public law defences, yes.

      On allocations codes of guidance, no. Those apply to LAs only under Part 6 HA 1996.

      But on how they operate their own transfer or selection policies, oh yes. For some, if not all, RSLs the days of arbitrarily deciding whether to transfer someone or not may be drawing to a close. For a short while, until the big RSLs get used to JR, this could be an interesting time for them, in the Chinese sense.

      I also completely expect responses to JRs and public law defences on the basis that this specific RSL is not a public body. There is enough in Weaver to leave this open as I’m sure our forthcoming post will cover.

    • teeth gnash – I will never successfully wrap my head around allocations stuff…

      ta!
      shall wait for the full report with baited breath

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.