Click the case name for better results:

Network Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council: QBD 7 Nov 1994

An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one flat from the flat above due to the absence (under ceiling, on floor … Continue reading Network Housing Association Ltd v Westminster City Council: QBD 7 Nov 1994

Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 5 Nov 2001

The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an enforceable one, once a child’s needs had been assessed. If that had been … Continue reading Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 5 Nov 2001

Sharif v The London Borough of Camden: SC 20 Feb 2013

The council appealed against a decision that having found Ms Sharif to be homeless, they had a duty also to house her sick father and sister as family members in one accomodation unit. Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded (Lord Kerr dissenting). Though a fundamental aim of the legislation was to keep families together, section 176 … Continue reading Sharif v The London Borough of Camden: SC 20 Feb 2013

AS v London Borough of Camden: CA 20 Apr 2011

The claimant appealed against rejection of her objection to the defendant’s decision that it had discharged its housing duties toward her. Held: The appeal succeeded. Etherton LJ said: ‘The accommodation offered by Camden to the applicant comprised two self-contained flats, on the same floor of the building, but a short distance apart, one of which … Continue reading AS v London Borough of Camden: CA 20 Apr 2011

Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: HL 1 Nov 2001

Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under section 193. The authority told Mrs M that they accepted a duty to … Continue reading Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: HL 1 Nov 2001

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a … Continue reading Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2: ECHR 9 Feb 1967

The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French. Held: In establishing a system or regime to comply with a Convention obligation, a State may include within the system elements that are not strictly required … Continue reading Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2: ECHR 9 Feb 1967

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