(Not) Normal service

Yes, I know we are a bit behind. For example, Willow Court Management Company (1985) Ltd v Alexander [2016] UKUT 290 (LC) on FTT Rule 13 costs, Hoyte, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 1665 (Admin)  on intervening events and fresh homeless applications and Huda v The London Borough of Redbridge [2016] EWCA Civ 709 on ‘settled accommodation’ (though to be scrupulously fair to us, that was only out today). We will get there eventually.

But I’m off on holiday for a couple of weeks as of now. Out of office on, holiday notes done etc. etc. At the very moment that the Supreme Court hands down judgment on Wednesday 13 July in Edwards (Respondent) v Kumarasamy (Appellant) UKSC 2015/0095 on the extent of section 11 repairing obligations, I expect to be somewhere quite high over the Adriatic sea*. So, subject to the tender attentions of other NL writers, all I can say is tough, and that you might have to wait a bit. I have earned this holiday…

*Yes, of course I will be checking the judgment once I have landed.

 

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 Housing law - All.

2 Comments

  1. Willow Court is an example of how an FMC RMC RTM Collective Enfranchisement companies get themselves in hot water by failing to appreciate that although they are a company, and free to operate within their articles of association, they are bound by their contracts, in this case leases,and the area of law in which they operate. for example, costs have to be calculated and billed per the lease and notices under section 47/48 given, members may at a general meeting may agree to re -roof however consultation under “section 20″ must be carried out. The legal costs (or irrecoverable service charge costs over say £250) incurred could leave a company insolvent and premises unmanageable and unsaleable. While Willow Court articles may allow for contributions and therefore, perhaps, costs to be recovered from shareholders or members in so far as they are irrecoverable under the lease or capped as in this case, the poor lessee even if victorious against ” the committee” can find themselves liable to pay towards costs in any event to keep the company solvent and their home and investment managed and viable.

  2. And when readers get to this, the other lesson is don’t wait three years for three years of arrears to accrue before taking recovery action.

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.