Click the case name for better results:

Waltham Forest v Khan (Housing – Selective Licencing): UTLC 12 Apr 2017

HOUSING – SELECTIVE LICENCING – Part 3, Housing Act 2004 – residential premises converted without planning permission – whether relevant to decision on licence application – appeals allowed Citations: [2017] UKUT 153 (LC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 2004 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582130

Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi and Another: CA 19 May 2011

Gladehurst had let the property to the two tenants under an assured shorthold tenancy. They paid a deposit, which it retained and never paid into the deposit scheme. The tenancy came to an end when the tenants vacated the property, after which deductions from the deposit were made for breaches of the cleaning and repairing … Continue reading Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi and Another: CA 19 May 2011

Potts v Densley and Another: QBD 6 May 2011

The claimant had been a shorthold tenant. The landlord had failed to secure the deposit as required, but offered to repay it after the determination of the tenancy. The claimant now appealed against a refusal of an award of three times the deposit. Held: The appeal failed. Sharp J said: ‘section 214(4) is mandatory in … Continue reading Potts v Densley and Another: QBD 6 May 2011

Khuja v Chowdhury: Misc 14 May 2015

Oxford County Court – possession hearing – landlord completing deposit protection procedure only after possession proceedings – new proceedings Vincent DJ [2015] EW Misc B18 (CC) Bailii Housing Act 2004 213 England and Wales Housing Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551740

Ayannuga v Swindells: CA 6 Nov 2012

The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the tenancy agreement. Held: The tenant’s appeal was allowed. The judge had reached a conclusion quite outside … Continue reading Ayannuga v Swindells: CA 6 Nov 2012

Draycott and Another v Hannells Letting Ltd (T/A Hannells Letting Agents): QBD 12 Feb 2010

The landlord’s agent did not place the tenant’s deposit with an authorised scheme or provide the appropriate notice within the 14 days required by the 2004 Act. T sought a penalty after it had been deposited. L said that the deposit penalty could no longer be ordered, and now appealed against on order that it … Continue reading Draycott and Another v Hannells Letting Ltd (T/A Hannells Letting Agents): QBD 12 Feb 2010

Porter and Weeks v Magill: HL 13 Dec 2001

Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be unlawful and leave the authority unable to meet … Continue reading Porter and Weeks v Magill: HL 13 Dec 2001

Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates): CA 11 Nov 2010

The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later compliance, and whether the TDS scheme’s own conditions were part of the requirement. Held: … Continue reading Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates): CA 11 Nov 2010

Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening): HL 13 Feb 2003

The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an appeal to the County Court on a point of law. Held: The decision was … Continue reading Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening): HL 13 Feb 2003

Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The ‘Diana Prosperity’): HL 1976

References: [1976] 1 WLR 989, [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621, [1976] 3 All ER 570 Coram: Lord Wilberforce Ratio:In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility … Continue reading Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The ‘Diana Prosperity’): HL 1976

Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The Diana Prosperity”): HL 1976″

References: [1976] 1 WLR 989, [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621, [1976] 3 All ER 570 Coram: Lord Wilberforce In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility … Continue reading Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The Diana Prosperity”): HL 1976″