Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Allocation
ASB
Assured Shorthold tenancy
assured-tenancy
Benefits and care
Deposits
Disrepair
Homeless
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Nuisance
Possession
Regulation and planning
right-to-buy
secure-tenancy
Succession
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment
By Dave
04/07/2011

Contracting out reviews

In Karaj v Three Rivers DC [2011] EWCA Civ 768, Ward and Rimer LJJ granted permission to appeal on what appears to be the “Shacklady” issue (links to our report), viz whether a failure to follow the proper rules regarding the contracting out of the review process invalidates the (entire) review itself.  Three Rivers DC had contracted out their reviews to a well-known contractor.  Before HHJ Faber, the Shacklady argument had been unsuccessful. Permission was refused by the MR on the papers but granted after a renewed application for permission by Christopher Baker – to whom many congrats – on the basis that here there is an appeal which has a real prospect of success.  The court also noted that it would apply the lower threshold to permission (Elrify, at [24]) because the matter could not be raised on review.  HHJ Faber’s analysis was effectively the first such judicial consideration of  the contracting out point. Watch out for this one – could be v interesting.

3 Comments

  1. Jan

    Anyone know what happened to this appeal?

    Reply
  2. J

    Settled, but that’s all I know.

    Reply
    • Jan

      Thanks. Can anyone help with further details?

      Jan

      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.