Click the case name for better results:

Muchesa v Central and Cecil Housing Care Support: EAT 22 Aug 2008

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Automatically unfair reasons PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke The employee claimed that she had been dismissed for making protected disclosures and that her dismissal was unfair under s98A(1) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). She failed on protected disclosure; the dismissal was unfair under s98A(1) but if a proper … Continue reading Muchesa v Central and Cecil Housing Care Support: EAT 22 Aug 2008

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

Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 29 Jul 2005

The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough. Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy had been adopted after an acute shortage of affordable housing. That policy was not … Continue reading Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 29 Jul 2005

Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

Forcelux and Mr Binnie were the landlord and tenant of a flat in Lincoln. Under the lease, the tenant was obliged to pay ground rent and other charges. The lease contained a forfeiture provision in the event of non-payment of rent or charges. Mr Binnie fell into arrears and Forcelux obtained a default judgment against … Continue reading Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council: CA 1986

Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. Section 32(3) … Continue reading Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council: CA 1986

Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A: HL 23 Oct 2003

The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult. Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They must show that their children are children in need within the meaning of section 17(10). … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A: HL 23 Oct 2003

Anderson v Chesterfield High School (Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason): EAT 14 Apr 2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – Contributory fault Polkey deduction The Claimant is a politician in Local Government and is currently the elected Mayor of Liverpool. This is an executive post and regarded as full-time. The position carries with it an annual allowance of almost andpound;80,000. The Claimant had previously … Continue reading Anderson v Chesterfield High School (Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason): EAT 14 Apr 2015

Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson: ChD 22 Jan 2004

Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed. Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. The claimant was entitled to register part only of the area of land original included. An application was … Continue reading Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson: ChD 22 Jan 2004

Ravichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 2 Jul 2010

The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons. Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The offer being of a permanent home, ‘Unless bound by authority to reach a … Continue reading Ravichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 2 Jul 2010