The tenant had created a sub tenancy, the result of which was that he no longer had any right to enter upon the property unless the sub-tenant surrendered his lease. Held: The tenant could not be said properly to be in occupation of the tenanted property. When a tenant has sublet, the question of whether … Continue reading Ujima Housing Association v Ansah and Another: CA 17 Oct 1997
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it was worded to create a lease for life (applying the LRB case). Held: The tenant’s … Continue reading Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd: SC 9 Nov 2011
The presence of cooking facilities is an essential element in deciding whether premises could constitute a dwelling. Accordingly, a room in a hotel without such facilities could not be subject to an assured tenancy. A room with cooking facilities and access to a bathroom could be a dwelling, but the sharing of cooking facilities denied … Continue reading Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins, Same v Carell: CA 10 Dec 1999
Notice determining tenancy effectively was notice requiring possession. Citations: Times 15-Jul-1996 Statutes: Housing Act 1988 21(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.80482
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made after a finding that they had been involved (separately) in the smuggling of tobacco, suggesting a conflict between the 1992 Regulations and the Directive. Held: The appeals variously failed and succeeded according to their facts. A person obtains a pecuniary advantage by evading duty or VAT even though … Continue reading White and Others v Regina: CACD 5 May 2010
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of the National Assistance Act, failed to provide the family with accommodation suited to … Continue reading Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council: Admn 25 Oct 2002
Civil servants had been transferred to a private company. At first they worked under secondment from the civil service. They asserted that they had protection under TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive. The respondent said that there had only been a transfer over time, so as to diminish their periods of continuous employment. The matter … Continue reading North Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others: HL 21 Jun 2006
The court was asked: ‘whether a notice that the respondents, who own the relevant premises, served on the appellants, who are assured shorthold tenants, satisfied the requirements of section 21(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. The respondents maintain that it did. The appellants dispute that on the basis that the respondents were not at the date … Continue reading Barrow and Amey v Kazim and Others: CA 31 Oct 2018
The tenant complained both that her tenancy was a periodic assured tenancy acquired on succession, and that the termination notice given to her was invalid. LSP had granted an assured shorthold tenancy to C, and J was her statutory successor. The notice to terminate gave no date on which the tenancy was to end, but … Continue reading Lower Street Properties Ltd v Jones: CA 1986
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits such as income support. The Act should be read so as to disallow … Continue reading Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc: QBD 8 Oct 1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within s59. Held: Such destitution was capable of being a reason within the Act, and the appeal against … Continue reading Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar: CA 25 Jun 1996
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the claimant? Held: A finding that a Convention right has been infringed, including a … Continue reading Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets in the UK. They argued that the terms of issue waived state immunity. Held: The … Continue reading NML Capital Ltd v Argentina: SC 6 Jul 2011
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city with named others. The council was using the orders to attempt to control gang activities. … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Another: CA 30 Oct 2008
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
