Click the case name for better results:

Cadogan v McGirk: CA 25 Apr 1996

The court considered whether the 1993 Act should be construed as expropriatory legislation and therefore was to be read strictly. Held: The Court rejected the submission that the relevant provisions must be strictly construed because the 1993 Act was expropriatory in nature. Millet LJ said: ‘It would, in my opinion, be wrong to disregard the … Continue reading Cadogan v McGirk: CA 25 Apr 1996

Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd: CA 7 Dec 2004

The claimant sought payment under its invoice for construction works. The contractor gave notice of its intention to withhold payment, and then also sought to refer the matter to arbitration. The claimant said that the notice had prevented the reference, and appealed a stay pending the arbitration. Held: The appeal failed. There was nothing in … Continue reading Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd: CA 7 Dec 2004

Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001

One of two joint tenants was able to give a notice to quit a joint periodic tenancy, without first referring to the co-tenant. If this was inappropriate, then it was for Parliament to change the law. Such a notice was not the exercise of a ‘function’ relating to the land within the Act, and accordingly … Continue reading Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council: CA 17 Apr 2008

The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed against a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it would have been reasonable for [them] to continue to occupy’. It … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council: CA 17 Apr 2008

Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society: CA 4 Dec 2007

The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now appealed against a finding to the contrary, saying that, per Osmani, to … Continue reading Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society: CA 4 Dec 2007

Regina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others: CA 1 Dec 2000

Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in accommodation in Great Yarmouth, failed in its statutory duty, because the result of that placement … Continue reading Regina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others: CA 1 Dec 2000

Lomax v Gosport Borough Council: CA 1 Aug 2018

The court was asked whether Gosport BC correctly applied sections 175 and 177 of the 1996 Act in concluding that it was reasonable for a severely disabled applicant for housing to continue to occupy her accommodation. Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 1846 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 175 177 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: … Continue reading Lomax v Gosport Borough Council: CA 1 Aug 2018

Hussain v The London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 20 Jan 2015

The claimant, a tenant of the respondent had a troublesome neighbour. Though she reported the matter to the police she was afraid to lay a formal complaint. The respondent said it was unable to rehouse her as homeless in the absence of such a complaint. The County Court judge allowed her appeal and quashed the … Continue reading Hussain v The London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 20 Jan 2015

Boreh v London Borough of Ealing: CA 29 Oct 2008

The claimant said that she was unintentionally homeless and in priority need. She suffered several substantial disabilities, and said that the accommodation offered was not suitable to those needs. She used a wheelchair, but there was no wheelchair access and had the bedrooms on the first floor. The authority said it had discharged its duties, … Continue reading Boreh v London Borough of Ealing: CA 29 Oct 2008

Payne and Woodland v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barnet: CA 22 May 1997

The sale of a council house imposed an additional duty on a local authority to disclose known structural defects to buyers. Citations: Times 24-Jun-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1752, (1998) 10 Admin LR 185, (1998) 30 HLR 295, (1998) 76 P and CR 293 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1985 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited … Continue reading Payne and Woodland v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barnet: CA 22 May 1997

Babakandi v Westminster City Council: Admn 6 Jul 2011

The claimant who the defendant accepted lived in severely overcrowded conditions with his family, said that the defendant’s allocation policy was unlawful in debarring tenants such as himself who were in rent arrears from being allocated a property, and/or that the policy was being unlawfully implemented. Judges: Nicol J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1756 (Admin) Links: … Continue reading Babakandi v Westminster City Council: Admn 6 Jul 2011

Makisi v Birmingham City Council: CA 31 Mar 2011

The court considered questions arising under the review procedure applicable under homelessness provisions. Judges: Maurice Kay LJ VP, Rimer, Etherton LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 355 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 202, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431750

Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and Another: CA 24 Feb 2004

Application was made to register the ‘trap grounds’ as a village green. Held: Carnwath LJ: ‘The 1965 Act created no new legal status, and no new rights or liabilities other than those resulting from the proper interpretation of section 10. Since that section only takes effect in relation to any particular land on registration, there … Continue reading Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and Another: CA 24 Feb 2004

Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: CA 1 Nov 1999

The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could not afford to travel to it. The power of the County Court to hear … Continue reading Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: CA 1 Nov 1999

Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council: SC 17 Feb 2010

The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that she had not received a letter informing her of the consequences of not accepting an … Continue reading Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council: SC 17 Feb 2010

Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe: HL 30 Jul 2008

The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal. Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding that Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring’s behaviour in repudiating, and seeking an improvement on, the core financial terms of the … Continue reading Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe: HL 30 Jul 2008