Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as a spouse someone living … Continue reading Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd: HL 28 Oct 1999
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. After three days the council completed their investigations. Though … Continue reading Mohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 28 Apr 1995
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the trial. Held: (Hale LJ dissenting) The court in this case was … Continue reading Re S (A Child): CA 10 Jul 2003
The claimant sought damages following his dismissal to include a sum to reflect the manner of his dismissal and the distress caused. Held: The remarks of Lord Hoffmann in Johnson -v- Unysis were obiter. The court could not, under the section, include any element for a non-financial loss, such as injury to feelings arising from … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council: HL 15 Jul 2004
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
The court considered whether a power of appeal to the existed.
Held: A power did exist under FETO, and the CANI having mistakenly excluded a power to appeal the Supreme Court could nevertheless hear it. Both appeals were allowed. . .
