Lee v Leeds City Council; Ratcliffe and Others v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 21 Jan 2002

The claimants were tenants who sought damages from their local authority landlords, for failing to remedy defects such as mould, mildew, and condensation in the dwellings let to them. The defects were a result of the design of the building. They asked the court to revisit the law settled in the Quick case in the light now of the Human Rights Act.
Held: Quick was not decided per incuriam. There was neither common law nor statutory reason to think that a general burden such as that requested was in fact imposed by law. The law allowed for repair of properties where the defect was one which arose from being ‘out of repair’. The Human Rights Act and the Convention did not assist the claimants.

Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Tuckey and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Times 29-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 6, [2002] 1 EGLR 103
Bailii, Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998 6, European Convention on Human Rights Art 8, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11, Defective Premises Act 1972 4
England and Wales
CitedQuick 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 . .

Cited by:
CitedDunn v Bradford Metropolitan District Council etc CA 31-Jul-2002
The applicants were local authority secure tenants. Possession orders had been made, but they sought delay in the order after they had already surrendered possession.
Held: Parliament had given wide discretion to the courts to find a balance . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.167481

Gibson v Douglas and Another: CA 8 Dec 2016

Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an interested onlooker in the eviction. The appeal failed.

Sir James Munby P FD, Briggs LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1266
England and Wales
CitedMinister of Health v Bellotti CA 1944
298 blocks of flats had been requisitioned to provide accommodation for persons evacuated from Gibraltar during the war. The evacuees occupied the various flats as licensees. They were given only one week’s notice terminating their licences.
CitedRobson v Hallett CA 1967
A police officer had been impliedly invited onto land, and was asked to leave, but was then assaulted before he had chance to leave.
Held: The conviction was upheld.
There is an implied licence available to members of the public on . .
CitedParker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572414

Watts v Stewart and Others: CA 8 Dec 2016

The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs Watts was a beneficiary of the Charity, her occupation was that of tenant at will of the trustees. The status of a beneficiary occupying trust property will depend upon the terms and conditions on which the occupation was permitted. The beneficiary may be the tenant for life under a settlement. The terms of the trust may expressly permit the trustees to grant a tenancy or a licence to a beneficiary on particular terms. If a beneficiary is permitted to occupy trust property without any express terms stated or agreed and without any governing provision of the trust instrument to throw light on those terms and conditions, the occupation status of the beneficiary will depend upon the proper conclusion to be drawn from all the admissible evidence as to whether it was intended that the beneficiary should occupy as licensee or in some other capacity. In the present case, for the reasons we have given, the terms on which Mrs Watts was permitted to occupy the property excluded the grant of legal possession. There is simply no scope in those circumstances to infer the grant of a tenancy at will.’

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Arden DBE, Lloyd Jones LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1247, [2016] WLR(D) 666, [2017] 1 P and CR DG18, [2017] L and TR 24, [2017] 2 WLR 1107, [2017] HLR 8
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
CitedAllan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
CitedErrington v Errington and Woods CA 19-Dec-1951
There was a contract by a father to allow his son to buy the father’s house on payment of the instalments of the father’s Building Society loan.
Held: Denning LJ reviewed the cases and said: ‘The result of all these cases is that, although a . .
CitedStreet v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
CitedGray and others v Taylor CA 2-Apr-1998
A right of occupation given by an almshouse under a charitable trust was an occupation under a licence without right of possession, not an assured tenancy. The plaintiff’s conditions of occupancy stated: ‘Residents are licensees and pay a . .
CitedEarl of Pomfret v Lord Windsor (1) 30-Jul-1752
An occupying beneficiary under a settlement, who was in possession by permission of the trustees, was a tenant at will to the trustees. . .
CitedRadaich v Smith 7-Sep-1959
(High Court of Australia) Justice Windeyer said: ‘What then is the fundamental right which a tenant has that distinguishes his position from that of a licensee? It is an interest in land as distinct from a personal permission to enter the land and . .
CitedLarkos v Cyprus ECHR 18-Feb-1999
The applicant had rented a house from the government, but was ordered to vacate the house following revocation of his tenancy. Because he had been a tenant of the government he was not, under domestic law, entitled to the security which he would . .
CitedBlecic v Croatia ECHR 29-Jul-2004
The applicant had for many years before 1992 had a protected tenancy of a publicly-owned flat in Zadar. Under Croatian law a specially-protected tenancy might be terminated if the tenant ceased to occupy the flat for a continuous period of six . .
CitedNiholas v Secretary of State for Defence ChD 1-Aug-2013
The claimant had been the wife of a military officer, and occupied a property licensed to him by the defendant. They divorced and he left, and she now resisted grant of possession to the defendant.
Held: The claimant failed. However, there was . .
CitedNicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
CitedDi Palma v United Kingdom ECHR 1-Dec-1986
(Commission/admissibility) The applicant’s lease was forfeited on her non-payment of a service charge and possession was ordered. Her primary claim was made (unsuccessfully) under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. But she also . .
CitedWood v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Jul-1997
(Commission decision as to admissibility) The applicant’s house had been repossessed by a mortgagee when she defaulted on her payments due under the mortgage. Her complaint was found to be manifestly ill-founded, saying ‘In so far as the . .
CitedLondon Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
CitedMcDonald v McDonald and Another CA 24-Jul-2014
The appellant had a personality dosorder. Her parents bought a house and granted her series of assured shorthold tenancies. After they fell into rrears on the morgtgage, the bank appointed receivers. The rent then also hell into arears, and they . .
CitedSouthward Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Walker and Another ChD 8-Jun-2015
The court was asked as to the nature and effect of tenancies for life granted by fully mutual housing co-operatives and in particular how they can lawfully be brought to an end and a possession order obtained. The tenants sought a declaration of . .

Cited by:
CitedWatkins, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court and Another Admn 2-May-2018
Whether almshouse tenant had been in breach of terms of letter of appointment, and whether the agreement was in fact a tenancy. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572423

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust: ChD 13 Jun 2001

The authority had served notices on the second defendant, requiring him to execute works to bring a property up to a habitable condition. Eventually the authority executed the works themselves, and sought repayment from him of the costs. He resisted enforcement proceedings on the basis that claim was defeated by limitation, and the long delay.
Held: The Act provided that ‘the amount of any expenses and interest thereon due to a local authority . . . shall be a charge on the premises in respect of which the expenses were incurred’. The charge does not take effect until the demand becomes operative and time cannot therefore begin to run for the purposes of an action for possession until 21 days after service of the demand, and time does not begin to run until the demand is made. The appeal failed.

Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
[2001] EWHC Ch 411
Housing Act 1985, Limitation Act 1980 15(1)
England and Wales
CitedSwansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
CitedHornsey Local Board v Monarch Investment Building Society CA 1889
The local authority had incurred expense in paving a street. They were entitled to apportion those expenses amongst the owners of the properties fronting onto that street and summarily to recover from the respective owners the amounts so . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Limitation

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.135415

Zohar v Lancaster City Council: UTLC 15 Nov 2016

UTLC HOUSING – housing conditions and housing standards — Housing Act 2004 — Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005 — local housing authority deciding to take emergency remedial action in relation to what it assessed to be a category 1 hazard — appeal by way of rehearing against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal — matters to be considered by FtT upon such an appeal

[2016] UKUT 510 (LC)
Housing Act 2004, Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005
England and Wales


Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571765

Birmingham City Council v Wilson: CA 17 Nov 2016

The case concerns the extent of a housing authority’s duty of inquiry, in light of the public sector equality duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, into whether an applicant for homelessness assistance has a disability requiring special arrangements to be made.

Black, Beatson, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1137
Housing Act 1996, Equality Act 2010 149
England and Wales

Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571419

Abdulrahman, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon: Admn 28 Oct 2016

Application for judicial review of a decision by the London Borough of Hillingdon to decline to accept the Claimant’s application made under section 183 of the Housing Act 1996 for accommodation.

Neil Cameron QC
[2016] EWHC 2647 (Admin)
Housing Act 1996 183
England and Wales


Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570780

Cardiff County Council v Lee (Flowers): CA 19 Oct 2016

The court was asked: ‘can the court proceed to validate a warrant of possession where a landlord who seeks to enforce his right to possession because of an alleged breach of the terms of a suspended possession order has not complied with CPR 83.2? ‘
Held: CPR r 83.2 were intended to provide real protection for tenants. Where an order for possession was granted under conditions, it was vital for the landlord to be able to show that those conditions had been satisfied before obtaining a warrant for possession. However, the warrant was not a nullity or void, but merely voidable. The court had a discretion under CPR 3.10 to arrange things so that a procedural error could be remedied. Here, the tenant was given the opportunity to be heard on an application to discharge the warrant, which was sufficient to cure the error.

Arden, Briggs LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1034, [2016] WLR(D) 536
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Procedure Rules 83.2
England and Wales
CitedVinos v Marks and Spencer plc CA 2001
The appellant claimed personal injuries. His solicitors issued a claim form within the limitation period, but only served it after the expiry of the four month period after the date of issue within which CPR 7.5 stipulated that the claim had to be . .
CitedSt Brice and Another v Southwark London Borough Council CA 17-Jul-2001
The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the . .
CitedHashtroodi v Hancock CA 27-May-2004
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the . .
CitedSteele v Mooney and others CA 8-Feb-2005
The claimant had sought an extension of time for service of her claim form in her action for personal injury. The solicitors in error did not include the words ‘claim form’ in their request. The judge had initially held the error was one of drafting . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Civil Procedure Rules.

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570361

Chouhan v The Earls High School: UTLC 15 Sep 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – assured periodic tenancy – whether agreement provided for contractual rent review and so precluded reference of proposed new rent to tribunal – whether mere statement of tenants’ rights – ss 13-14, Housing Act 1988 – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 405 (LC)
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569590

W v London Borough of Haringey: Misc 17 Feb 2016

Central London County Court – appeal by W under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the decision on review by the respondent local housing authority (‘Haringey’), upholding an earlier decision that he was not within a category of persons who are in ‘a priority need for accommodation’, as specified in s. 189(1) of the same Act.

[2016] EW Misc B20 (CC)
Housing Act 19965 8204


Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568930

Gateway Housing Association v Personal Representatives of Ali and Another: CA 22 Oct 2020

Correct procedure for terminating a periodic tenancy following the death of the tenant and before probate or letters of administration have been granted.

[2020] EWCA Civ 1339
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 18
England and Wales

Housing, Land, Wills and Probate

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.655048

Ahmed and Others v Murphy: Admn 10 May 2010

The landlords appealed against the maximum fair rent for premises as set by the Rent Assessment Committee. It had been found to be a capped rent, and set at andpound;8.50 per week. The landlords had wanted above andpound;140.00. The tenant was a protected tenant.
Held: The tenancy was a weekly furnished tenancy granted in 1974 after statutory protection was extended to furnished tenancies. It remains subject to the statutory regime for both protection and rent regulation that is applicable to such tenancies currently set out in the Rent Act 1977. The landlords said that the tenant having refused access to carry out improvements, the rent should be set on the basis that they had been carried out, applying the execption in section 70 of the 1977 Act. However there was no sufficient evidence of access being requested or refused.

Thornton J QC
[2010] EWHC 453 (Admin)
The Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, Rent Act 1977 70
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.412275

King and Others v Residential Marine Ltd (Park Homes – Electricity Charges): UTLC 21 Dec 2021

PARK HOMES – ELECTRICITY CHARGES – written statement requiring occupiers to pay for electricity supplied by park owner – no term fixing price of supply – disagreement over price – maximum resale price – whether charge to include contribution to climate change levy – section 4, Mobile Homes Act 1983 – section 44, Electricity Act 1989 – appeal allowed

[2021] UKUT 309 (LC)
England and Wales


Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.670634

C, T, M and U, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Southwark: CA 12 Jul 2016

Appeal against the order dismissing the appellants’ claims for judicial review and damages. The claim challenged the lawfulness of the accommodation and the level of financial support provided to a family by a local authority.

Moore-Bick VP CA, Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President of Tribunals, Vos LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 707
England and Wales

Housing, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566848

Regina v London Borough of Newham and Bibi and Al-Nashed: CA 26 Apr 2001

The housing authority had mistakenly thought that it was obliged to re-house the applicants under the Act with secure accommodation, and promised them accordingly.
Held: That promise had created a legitimate expectation: ‘In all legitimate expectation cases, whether substantive or procedural, three practical questions arise. The first question is to what has the public authority, whether by practice or by promise, committed itself; the second is whether the authority has acted or proposes to act unlawfully in relation to its commitment; the third is what the Court should do.’ The authority was to be obliged to honour that legitimate expectation to the extent of including it properly among the matters it considered when looking at their applications, and allocating to them housing. That obligation existed even if the authority had not been able to show that the claimants had not done anything to their detriment in relying upon the promise. Nevertheless, it did not create an obligation simply to fulfill the promise. Detrimental reliance does not necessarily ‘render it unfair to thwart a legitimate expectation.’ The court granted a declaration ‘that the local authority is under a duty to consider the applicants’ applications for suitable housing on the basis that they have a legitimate expectation that they will be provided by the authority with suitable accommodation on a secure tenancy.’

Schiemann LJ
Times 10-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR 237
Housing Act 1996
England and Wales
Appealed toRegina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Bibi, Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Al-Nashed Admn 18-Jan-1996
. .

Cited by:
CitedKariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Dec-2001
The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new . .
CitedRegina (on the Application on Denis James Galligan) v the Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford Admn 22-Nov-2001
The applicant was director of the institute for socio-legal studies in Oxford. He made a decision to exclude a lecturer, and now challenged a decision by the University to set up an external enquiry into his decision, after an earlier decision to . .
Appeal fromRegina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Bibi, Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Al-Nashed Admn 18-Jan-1996
. .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 22-Oct-2004
The claimant sought asylum, being an Iraqi Kurd. He was not told by the defendant of its policy not to require internal relocation within the Kurdish autonomous zone. The policy had been applied for the benefit of others, as was revealed only in . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
CitedLindley, Regina (on the Application of) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 21-Sep-2006
The claimant, aged 69 suffered from cerebral palsy. The council had provided his care but he said they had represented to him that care would be provided in a new facility, and claimed a legitimate expectation. The defendant said that its changed . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
CitedRegina (Ashbrook) v East Sussex County Council CA 20-Nov-2002
The claimant complained that the respondent had failed properly to secure removal of an admitted obstruction to a public footpath. The landowner had applied for a diversion of the footpath, which the respondent recommended for adoption, but the . .
CitedGrimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education, Regina (on The Application of) v Learning and Skills Council Admn 12-Aug-2010
The applicant had applied to the respondent for funding for new buildings. The application was approved, but the application was rejected when the respondent ran out of funds. The claimant said that a legitimate expectation had been created, and . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Housing

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.147518

Lee-Steere v Jennings: 1986

[1986] 30 HLR 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPaddington Churches Housing Association Ltd v Sharif CA 27-Jan-1997
The landlord had obtained a possession order against its secure tenant. The tenant had left to go to Egypt, and had been in arrears of rent. The tenancy obliged the tenant to occupy the prperty as his main residence. The landlord re-let the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.239721

Haringey London Borough Council v Stewart and Stewart: 1991

A tenant with a bad payment record may still be subject to an order for possession though he clears the arrears by the time of the hearing. When considering reasonableness, it is the duty of the judge to take into account all relevant circumstances as they exist at the date of the hearing in a ‘broad, common-sense way as a man of the world . . giving . . weight as he thinks fit to the various factors in the situation.’

Waite J
[1991] 2 EGLR 252, (1991) 23 HLR 557
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPaddington Churches Housing Association Ltd v Sharif CA 27-Jan-1997
The landlord had obtained a possession order against its secure tenant. The tenant had left to go to Egypt, and had been in arrears of rent. The tenancy obliged the tenant to occupy the prperty as his main residence. The landlord re-let the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.239722

Smajlaj, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest: Admn 26 May 2016

Claim for judicial review brought against the defendant, the London Borough of Waltham Forest alleging that, having concluded that the claimant was not a ‘priority need’, it failed to perform its duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, in particular to provide appropriate advice and assistance (s.192(2)) and accommodation in the exercise of its discretion (s.192(3)).

A Grubb DHCJ
[2016] EWHC 1240 (Admin)
Housing Act 1996 192


Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564908

Cali Apartments v Procureur general pres la cour d’appel de Paris: ECJ 2 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Directive 2006/123/EC – Scope – Repeated letting of furnished accommodation for residential use for short periods to a transient clientele which does not take up residence there – National legislation and municipal rules making that letting subject to prior authorisation and offsetting – Justification – Objective of ensuring sufficient and affordable long-term rental housing – Proportionality

[2020] EUECJ C-724/18_O, ECLI:EU:C:2020:251
See AlsoCali Apartments v Attorney General at the Paris Court of Appeal ECJ 15-Oct-2019
(Order) Hearing of witnesses . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.655025

Summers v Salford Corporation: HL 1943

The tenant had given notice to the landlord’s agent that a sash-cord in the only window of a bedroom had broken. No repair was effected and about two months later the second sash-cord broke injuring the tenant. The House was asked whether there was a breach by the landlords of the implied undertaking in the Act, that the house would be kept by the landlord during the tenancy in all respects fit for human habitation.
Held: Lord Atkin said: ‘In the present case the point on which the Court of Appeal in Morgans case decided for the defendant does not arise, namely, that notice of the lack of repair complained of must be given to the landlord before his statutory obligation arises. I can see that different considerations may arise in the case of an obligation to repair imposed in the public interest, and I think that this question must be left open, and I reserve to myself the right to reconsider my former decision if the necessity arises.’

Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Wright, Lord Romer
[1943] AC 283
Housing Act 1936 2(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIssa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
CitedO’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.221532

Blecic v Croatia: ECHR 8 Mar 2006

The applicant alleged that her rights to respect for her home and to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had been violated on account of the termination of her specially protected tenancy.
Held: Ratione temporis, the court had had no jurisdiction to hear the case in cases where a decision given by the domestic courts after the Convention’s entry into force related to events occurring before that date.

[2006] ECHR 207, 59532/00, (2006) 43 EHRR 48, 20 BHRC 1
Worldlii, Bailii
European Conmvention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
See AlsoBlecic v Croatia ECHR 29-Jul-2004
The applicant had for many years before 1992 had a protected tenancy of a publicly-owned flat in Zadar. Under Croatian law a specially-protected tenancy might be terminated if the tenant ceased to occupy the flat for a continuous period of six . .

Cited by:
CitedMGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
CitedKeyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.426923

Vilvarasa v London Borough of Harrow: CA 16 Nov 2010

Appeal against dismissal of the appeal the claimant from a decision of the Borough that its duty under the 1996 Act to secure that accommodation was available for him and his family had ceased by virtue of section 193(5) of the Act.

Carnwath, Rimer, Munby LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1278, [2011] HLR 11
Housing Act 1996 193(5)
England and Wales


Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.426857

B, Regina (on the Application of) v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 24 Jul 2003

The claimant appealed against rejection of his application for a grant in respect of works in his home for safety purposes. His son suffered a personality disorder resulting in aggressive behaviour. He sought a grant for the cost of creating separate bedrooms for the protection of the sibling.
Held: The grants are mandatory, but could not be used to provide for the safety not of the person suffering disability, but of another member of the family. The authority had correctly considered the issues before it, and it had accepted that a separate bedroom would be of benefit to the disturbed son’s own behavioural problems, but that did not go to his own safety.

Stanley Burnton, J
[2003] EWHC 1832 (Admin), Times 11-Sep-2003, Gazette 26-Feb-2004
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 23

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.184842

Best, Regina (on The Application of) v Oxford City Council: Admn 25 Mar 2009

Local authorities have a legal duty to provide accommodation which was suitable for homeless applicants, and suitability included affordability.

Geraldine Andrews QC HHJ
[2009] EWHC 608 (Admin)
Housing Act 1996 193
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561825

Potts v Densley and Another: QBD 6 May 2011

The claimant had been a shorthold tenant. The landlord had failed to secure the deposit as required, but offered to repay it after the determination of the tenancy. The claimant now appealed against a refusal of an award of three times the deposit.
Held: The appeal failed. Sharp J said: ‘section 214(4) is mandatory in that once a finding has been made that a deposit has not been secured in accordance with the Act, or that the prescribed information has not been provided (and in either case, the relevant date for that determination is the date of the hearing of the section 214(4) application, as Tiensia has decided) there is no discretion to refuse to make an order for the payment of three times the deposit sum under section 214(4).’
However, though at the time in question, the parties were no longer as such landlord and tenant, other parts of the Act continued that description after the tenancy ended, and ‘ . . a party’s position as ‘the landlord’ or ‘the tenant’ for the purposes of these provisions crystallises when a deposit is paid in connection with shorthold tenancy. Thereafter, ‘the landlord’ (i.e. the person receiving the deposit paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy) continues to be ‘the landlord’ for the purposes of the statute whether the tenancy has been determined or not and remains under a continuing obligation to comply with the initial requirements of the scheme and to provide the prescribed information. Moreover, it remains the case that the landlord will still be subject to sanction if he has not complied with the initial requirements of the scheme or provided the prescribed information by the time of hearing of the section 214(4) application (following Tiensia). I recognise this has the considerable disadvantage that the landlord might then not protect the deposit during the tenancy itself as I have indicated; but at least then he can be pursued thereafter by ‘the tenant’ and subject to sanction in the event he is unable . . to protect the deposit appropriately before the hearing.’
and ‘It therefore follows that subject to the second ground of appeal, the judge’s decision should be upheld on the ground that the Respondents had until the date of the hearing of the Appellant’s section 214(4) application to comply with the provisions of section 213(3); and having secured the deposit before the hearing, albeit after the determination of the tenancy, they had a complete defence to the section 214(4) claim.’

Sharp J
[2011] EWHC 1144 (QB), [2010] 3 All ER 411
The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007, Housing Act 2004 213 214
England and Wales
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
CitedDraycott and Another v Hannells Letting Ltd (T/A Hannells Letting Agents) QBD 12-Feb-2010
The landlord’s agent did not place the tenant’s deposit with an authorised scheme or provide the appropriate notice within the 14 days required by the 2004 Act. T sought a penalty after it had been deposited. L said that the deposit penalty could no . .
CitedTiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .

Cited by:
ApprovedSuurpere v Nice and Another QBD 27-Jul-2011
The tenant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the 2004 Act, saying that the notice as to the protection of her deposit had been inadequate on the grant of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to her.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.434900

Patel v Mehtab: QBD 1980

The question was whether the premises in question were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health, being injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health. The defects included dampness. Evidence was given by a self-employed public health advisor, who had previously been a senior public health inspector. He had inspected the premises and concluded that the premises were injurious to health. A serving environmental health officer for the local authority was also called. He stated that in his view the premises were close to being uninhabitable. He agreed that they were likely to be injurious to health. It was argued that medical evidence must be given only by somebody with medical qualifications.
Held: Environmental health officers had appropriate qualifications and experience to give this sort of evidence. This was not a field in which magistrates were free to use their own experience to substitute evidence of such eperts.

Donaldson LJ, Hodgson J
[1980] 5 HLR 78
Public Health Act 1936
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Venette Simpson Admn 3-Nov-1998
It was not necessary for environmental health officers to possess medical qualifications to express opinion as to whether or not premises were prejudicial to health as defined by section 79(1)(a) of the Act. The council appealed a finding that . .
CitedLisa O’Toole v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 18-May-1999
The respondent appealed by way of case stated a finding that a house was in the condition of being a statutory nuisance. They said that no evidence had been brought with regard to the health of the occupants or of any potential threat to health.

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.185100

Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, ex parte Nadia Saber: QBD 1991

It is not uncommon, after a decision has been reached that an applicant for housing under Part III of the Act became intentionally homeless, for a request to be made to reconsider the decision in the light of additional material or argument. Such a request is not the equivalent of a reapplication and does not cast on the housing authority the duties imposed when an application under Part III is made. It is otherwise if there has meanwhile been a material change of circumstances. The housing authority has, however, a discretion to accede to the request. A decision not to reconsider the original decision is clearly reviewable on ordinary Wednesbury principles. No more stringent criteria can apply. It may well therefore be that a challenge to a decision not to reconsider will infrequently succeed. Each case will of course fall to be considered on its own facts.

McCullough J
(1991) 24 HLR 611
Housing Act 1986
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedC v London Borough of Lewisham CA 4-Jul-2003
The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become . .
CitedRegina v Lord Mayor and Citizens of City of Westminster ex parte Ellioua CA 2-Jul-1998
The applicant sought to be rehoused. On review it was decided that she was intentionally homeless. She asked the authority to review that decision (a re-review). The authority said it had no power so to do. She had a right to appeal on a point of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.184316

Edwards and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council: Admn 8 Feb 2016

‘Each of the Claimants made an application to the Council for housing as a homeless person. They each claim that the manner in which the Council dealt with his or her application was unlawful; and, further, that that manner reflected systemic failings. They say that the Council, advertently or inadvertently, both in their own specific cases and generally, discourage and divert applications so that individuals are denied their statutory rights to have their situation properly inquired into and be given interim accommodation whilst those inquiries are being made.’

Hickinbottom J
[2016] EWHC 173 (Admin)
England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559672

Rutherford and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 27 Jan 2016

Challenge to lawfulness of regulations applying a discount to payments of housing benefits when there was deemed to be a spare bedroom.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, Tomlinson LJ, Vos LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 29, [2016] WLR(D) 36
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559354

Mellacher and Others v Austria: ECHR 19 Dec 1989

The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.
Held: The second paragraph reserves to States the right to enact such laws as they deem necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. Such laws are especially called for and usual in the field of housing, which in our modern societies is a central concern of social and economic policies. The possible existence of alternative solutions does not in itself render the contested legislation unjustified. In order to implement such policies, the legislature must have a wide margin of appreciation both with regard to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures of control and as to the choice of the detailed rules for the implementation of such measures. The Court will respect the legislature’s judgement as to what is in the general interest unless that judgement be manifestly without reasonable foundation.
In remedial social legislation, and in particular in the field of rent control, it must be open to the legislature to take measures affecting the further execution of previously concluded contracts in order to attain the aim of the policy adopted.
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1.

R Ryssdal, President
10522/83, [1993] ECR I-637, 11011/84, (1989) 12 EHRR 391, [1989] ECHR 25, 11070/84
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
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 of its property . .
CitedTrailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
CitedAnimal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
CitedMurungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedSalvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
CitedMott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.165059

East Staffordshire Borough Council v Fairless: Admn 14 Oct 1998

A notice of a statutory nuisance need not specify the acts required to remedy the nuisance, nor the capacity in which the person served is served. It is sufficient to identify the faults in a non-technical way. There is no good reason to import any additional requirements beyond those set out in the Act.

Times 26-Oct-1998, Gazette 28-Oct-1998, Gazette 10-Dec-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 954
Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(6)
England and Wales


Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.139075

Bacon v Mountview Estates Plc: UTLC 28 Oct 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Rent Determination – first-tier tribunal determining rent for flat on reference under Housing Act 1988 section 13 by applying criteria set out in Housing Act 1988 section 14 – whether first-tier tribunal erred in law – whether tenancy a protected or statutory tenancy governed by the Rent Act 1977 rather than an assured tenancy to which section 14 applied – applicability of Housing Act 1988 section 34 (1) (b)

[2015] UKUT 588 (LC)
Housing Act 1988 13 14 34(1)(b)
England and Wales


Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554280

Hyndburn Borough Council v Brown and Another: UTLC 11 Sep 2015

UTLC HOUSING – Houses in multiple occupation – s90 Housing Act 2004 – local housing authority’s powers to impose conditions upon the grant of a license in respect of houses within a selective licensing area – nature and extent of conditions which can be imposed

[2015] UKUT 489 (LC)
Housing Act 2004 90
England and Wales


Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553589

Newark and Sherwood Homes v Gorman: CA 3 Jun 2015

The appellant challenged an order declaring on a preliminary issue that the respondent council had elected to operate an introductory tenancy regime for the purposes of Section 124 of the 1996 Act and therefore that the tenancy granted by the respondent to the appellant was an introductory tenancy for the purposes of part V of the 1996 Act.

[2015] EWCA Civ 764
Housing Act 1996 124
England and Wales


Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552695

Barrett, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council: Admn 28 Jul 2015

The Claimant challenged the Defendant’s decisions to refuse to exercise its discretion under section 188(3) of the Housing Act to secure that accommodation is available to the Claimant pending the outcome of its review of her application for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

John Bowers QC
[2015] EWHC 2515 (Admin)
Housing Act 1996 188(3)
England and Wales


Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552042

HA, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Ealing: Admn 7 Aug 2015

Claim for Judicial Review of the Defendant’s revised Housing Allocations Policy and its decision relating to the application of that policy to the Claimant’s case. Permission to bring this claim was granted it being conceded that the claim was arguable. An expedited hearing was ordered. The Claimant was granted permission to rely on additional evidence, namely a witness statement of the charity, Women’s Aid.

Goss J
[2015] EWHC 2375 (Admin)
England and Wales


Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551043

Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham ex parte Fleck: Admn 18 Aug 1997

Sedley J said that , there would be a real risk that ‘a sick and vulnerable individual (and I do not use the word ‘vulnerable’ in its statutory sense) is going to be put out on the streets’, which he described as a ‘reproach to a society that considers itself to be civilised’.

Sedley J
[1997] EWHC Admin 779, [1998] COD 43, (1998) 30 HLR 679
Housing Act 1996 189
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137724

Regina v The London Borough Of Islington Ex Parte Blissett: Admn 9 Sep 1997

The applicant asserted that he had a right under the council’s policy to succeed to a council house tenancy granted to the appellant’s deceased, homosexual partner. The authority had a policy which would normally allow a survivor of a homosexual couple to take over a tenancy on the death of a partner. The authority doubted that he had lived with the deceased man for the year before his death.
Held: The council’s decision was not so unreasonable as to be capable of being set aside.

[1997] EWHC Admin 804
England and Wales


Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137749

Regina v The London Borough of Newham Ex Parte Qureshi: Admn 18 Sep 1997

The applicant, and her children, had lived in England, but returned to Pakistan for six months. On their return they first lived with their parents, but then sought housing as homeless. She appealed the finding that she was intentionally homeless. The notice giving the reasons under a statutory provision had to be proper, adequate and intelligible and must be read in the context of the statutory provision itself, and to the particular facts. In this case the letter was inadequate, and the decision was set aside.

Judge Rich Qc
[1997] HC Admin 813
Housing Act 1985 Part III
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Islington London Borough Council ex parte Hinds 1995
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137758

Regina v The London Borough of Newham Ex Parte Miah: Admn 12 Sep 1997

The claimant was housed in temporary accommodation pending the determination of their homelessness claims. The claimant’s wife suffered mental illness, and they wished to reject an offer of accommodation. The authority sought to argue that the accommodation already provided satisfied their duties to provide permanent housing. It was held that the authority had through its letters created a legitimate expectation that further accommodation would be offered which would be more appropriate, even if the initial offer was rejected.

[1997] EWHC Admin 806
Housing Act 1985 65(2)
England and Wales
CitedRegina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Ayse Hassan Admn 17-Jul-1997
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137751

Lambeth London Borough Council v Hughes: CA 8 May 2000

The tenant had been misled both by the respondent Council and by the court.
Held: (Waller LJ) ‘Mr Hughes has made out a case that he received misleading advice from the court. He has also made out a case that he was misled as to the procedures that were available to him i.e. a procedure available under s.85(2). In those circumstances, he has made out a case of oppression …’ (Arden J) ‘It is clear from the authorities that oppression includes oppressive conduct which effectively deprives a tenant of his opportunity to apply for a stay (see the Hill case). The position in this case is due to a combination of factors . . There was first the local authority’s letter and the conversation with the housing officer . . both of which indicated that payment in full of all arrears was required to avoid eviction . . [Mr Hughes] went to the court office where he was given inaccurate information. He was told that eviction papers had not been issued . . The ingredients of oppression in a case such as this have not been defined by the court. The court has stressed that what amounts to oppression depends on the circumstances, but it seems clear to me that the lack of opportunity would not have occurred if Mr Hughes had not been wrongly advised by the court or if the local authority had not given the impression that he had to pay the arrears in full. I agree with Waller LJ that the result is unfair to Mr Hughes.’
Whether execution of a warrant should be set aside by reason of ‘oppression’ in its execution, the alleged acts giving rise to the alleged oppression being those of the Council and certain acts of the Court Office.

Waller LJ, Arden J
Unreported, 8 May 2000, [2000] EWCA Civ B2
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another CA 1-Nov-2000
A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.632180