More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Assured Shorthold tenancy
Benefits and care
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Regulation and planning
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment

Request for info: Powell v Hounslow


We have just heard about a case, Powell v Hounslow, which is apparently due to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 15 November. According to our informant, the issue is whether an Art 8 defence can be made by a non-secure tenant in possession proceedings.

We know nothing more, but would very much like to. If anyone involved reads this, could you pass on some details or better yet, a transcript of the first instance hearing and of the issues in the appeal? The usual email address, contact (at), ta.

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.


    • JS

      This case together with MCC-v- Mushin and Leeds CC -v- Hall- all Art 8 public law defences cases have been stood out of the list on 23/10 pending the SC deciding whether to grant PTA in Pinnock .

      • NL

        Thanks for that. Interesting. So Pinnock could be the key 1/4 pounder or Royale deciding case?

        That could be quite some length of stay for these cases if the Supreme Court does give permission.

  1. kevin gannon

    Dear All,

    I am counsel instructed on behalf of Ms Powell. The case is indeed about Article 8 in possession proceedings. the case is on appeal from an all day trial in front of a deputy DJ at Brentford county court. I don’t have sols permission to release much more, but anyone intrested can contact me at 1 Pump Court.


    Kevin Gannon

    • NL

      Many thanks, Kevin. You’ve got mail…

      • Haroon Sarwar

        Thanks to all at Nearly Legal for helping me to find a needle in a haystack. Mr Gannon, I’ll be in touch with you soon.

  2. Eugene MacLauglin

    I am the solicitor with conduct of this matter for Ms Powell. For the avoidance of doubt, my client’s confidentiality is paramount in this case. You are all advised to wait for judgment and no one on Ms Powell’s side has permission to discuss this case with anyone. I trust this is sufficiently clear.

    • NL

      Dear Mr MacLauglin, please note that:
      1. All on the NL team are housing/L&T specialist barristers and solicitors. We had no intention of breaching your client’s confidentiality and indeed hadn’t requested anything that would.
      2. The judgment in the court below is a matter of public record, as the Court of Appeal judgment will be, and also I believe the Court of Appeal file can be seen by anyone interested.
      3. May I suggest that if you don’t want anyone to know about your cases you don’t actually take them to trial, let alone appeal? That would be safest.

      As you are clearly not a regular visitor, why not have a look at what we actually do here? You could start with the ‘possession’ category, list on the right.

      And for the future, ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ is fighting talk round these parts, let alone ‘you are advised’.

      Otherwise, welcome to Nearly Legal


  3. simply wondered

    go NL!!!!!

    woohooo! they’ll be round tooled up with the geezer whose neighbour built the ‘illegal’ gate… you are gonna need serious protection, boy. include me out. i shall be in court, cowering.
    ps point 3 – wise words.


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.