Category: Housing

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

Housing

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)
Bailii
Housing Act 1988 13 14 34(1)(b)
England and Wales

Housing

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)
Bailii
Housing Act 2004 90
England and Wales

Housing

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.

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

Housing

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)
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 188(3)
England and Wales

Housing

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)
Bailii
England and Wales

Housing

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
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 189
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hotak 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.

Housing

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137724

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
Citing:
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Newham ex parte Ayse Hassan Admn 17-Jul-1997
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137751

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

Housing

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
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council ex parte Hinds 1995
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137758

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
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jephson 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.

Housing

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.632180

Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 3 Nov 2010

The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his family members. The county court had been unwilling to allow any challenge to the council’s conclusions on the facts, and the Court of Appeal had restricted its role further.
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded as to the law, but the Court rejected the appeal on the facts.
Section 143D(2) should be read as allowing the court to exercise the powers which are necessary to consider and, where appropriate, to give effect to, any article 8 defence which the defendant raises in the possession proceedings.
The decisions of the ECHR conflicted with decisions of the House of Lords. Jurisprudence had already established that: 1) Any person at risk of being dispossessed of his home at the suit of a local authority should in principle have the right to raise the question of the proportionality of the measure, and to have it determined by an independent tribunal in the light of article 8, even if his right of occupation under domestic law has come to an end, and 2) A judicial procedure which is limited to addressing the proportionality of the measure through the medium of traditional judicial review (i e, one which does not permit the court to make its own assessment of the facts in an appropriate case) is inadequate as it is not appropriate for resolving sensitive factual issues, and 3) Where the measure includes proceedings involving more than one stage, it is the proceedings as a whole which must be considered in order to see if article 8 has been complied with, and 4) If the court concludes that it would be disproportionate to evict a person from his home notwithstanding the fact that he has no domestic right to remain there, it would be unlawful to evict him so long as the conclusion obtains.
Before making a demotion order, the court must consider for itself the factual basis for making such an order. Moreover, the court can only make such an order once it is satisfied (a) that the facts which it investigates and determines justify the order under section 82A(4)(a), and (b) that it is reasonable to make the order under section 82A(4)(b). After demotion, onceaccepted that it is open to a demoted tenant to seek judicial review of a landlord’s decision to bring and continue possession proceedings, then it inevitably follows that it is open to a tenant to challenge that decision on the ground that it would be disproportionate and therefore contrary to article 8. Furthermore, if the procedure laid down in section 143E or 143F has not been lawfully complied with, either because the express requirements of that section have not been observed or because the rules of natural justice have been infringed, the tenant should be able to raise that as a defence to a possession claim under section 143D(2).

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Collins
[2010] UKSC 45, UKSC 2009/0180, [2010] WLR (D) 278, [2011] HLR 7, [2011] 1 All ER 285, [2010] 3 WLR 1441, [2011] PTSR 61, [2010] BLGR 909, [2010] 45 EG 93, [2010] NPC 109
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, Bailii Summary
Housing Act 1985 84, Housing Act 1996 143D(2), Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Manchester City Council v Pinnock CA 31-Jul-2009
The court considered the status in law of ‘demoted tenants’, those who had been secure social housing tenants, but who had only limited security after being found to have behaved anti-socially. The tenant had been refused an opportunity by the . .
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – Kay And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Sep-2010
(Fourth Section) After carefully considering the various views expressed in the House of Lords in Kay v Lambeth [2006] 2 AC 465 and Doherty v Birmingham [2009] 1 AC 367, and the relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal, the EurCtHR stated, at paras . .
Cited – Cosic v Croatia ECHR 15-Jan-2009
The applicant teacher was provided a flat by her school, which it in had leased from the Yugoslavian Army. That lease expired in 1990. She remained, paying rent to the school. Ultimately the Croatian State, which had assumed ownership of Yugoslavian . .
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – Paulic v Croatia ECHR 22-Oct-2009
The State re-acquired a former Yugoslavian Army flat and brought a civil action seeking the applicant’s eviction on the basis that he never obtained a specially protected tenancy under domestic law. The Croatian court ordered his eviction.
Cited – Zehentner v Austria ECHR 16-Jul-2009
ECHR The applicant’s apartment was subject to a judicial sale for non-payment of debt. She was ill, and did not participate in the sale. The local law had time limits for challenging a judicial sale, designed to . .
Cited – Blecic 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 – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Sep-2008
The local authority had determined Mr McCann’s right to remain in his home by obtaining from his wife a notice to quit, the effect of which (surrendering their joint tenancy) upon him she did not understand. He said that this interfered with his . .
Cited – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Pyx Granite Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government HL 1959
There is a strong presumption that Parliament will not legislate to prevent individuals affected by legal measures promulgated by executive public bodies having a fair opportunity to challenge these measures and to vindicate their rights in court . .
Disapproved in part – Manchester City Council v Cochrane and Cochrane CA 21-Dec-1998
The tenants held an introductory tenancy under the Act. The council sought possession, after giving notice, and after its review under the Act. The tenants objected, but the Council denied the right of the County Court to hear the objection, arguing . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Salford City Council v Mullen CA 30-Mar-2010
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that . .
Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Manchester 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 . . .
Applied – London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc SC 23-Feb-2011
In each case the tenant occupied the property as his home, but was not a secure tenant of the local authority. The Court was asked whether, in granting a possession order in such a case, the court was obliged to consider the proportionality of the . .
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
Cited – Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.425744

Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006

In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family life.
Held: Article 8 could not be invoked by an occupier of a residential property in support of his case against his landlord’s claim for possession, because domestic law had already taken into account, and balanced, the public interest in a public authority landlord obtaining possession and the tenant’s right to respect for his home.
The House considered apparent conflicts between its own jurisprudence in Qazi, and that of the European Court of Human Rights.
Leeds CC sought possession of land occupied by gypsies without plannng permission, and the occupiers said that their right to family life had been infringed. The council said its right to possession was absolute. The authority’s right to reclaim the land was absolute in accordance with domestic property law, save only that the occupier must be given opportunity to present any art 8 defence which it for the occupier to raise through court proceedings. The recreation ground had not become the appellants’ home within article 8.
Lord Bingham emphasised the importance and value of adhering to precedent in the interests of certainty and clarity. This meant that our domestic rules of precedent should apply, even in the Convention context.
In the second appeal, tenancies had been purported to be granted when the purported landlord was merely a licensee and did not have a sufficient legal interest to create a legal estate: ‘the courts below should have held the premises in question to be the homes of the respective appellants and should have held their eviction or proposed eviction to be an interference with their exercise of their right to respect for their homes within the meaning of article 8(2). Their defences should not have been struck out save on the basis that nothing sufficient was pleaded to support them. ‘
Lord Hope of Craighead: ‘a defence which does not challenge the law under which the possession order is sought as being incompatible with the article 8 but is based only on the occupier’s personal circumstances should be struck out.’ The reasoning in the Qazi case need not not be departed from to accommodate the European jurisprudence.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls Of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2006] UKHL 10, Times 10-Mar-2006, [2006] 2 WLR 570, [2006] 2 AC 465
Bailii
Homelessness Act 2002, Race Relations Act 1976;, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – London 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 . .
Appeal from – Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 20-Jul-2004
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the . .
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – S v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The applicant was not entitled in domestic law to succeed to a tenancy on the death of her partner. The aim of the legislation is question was to protect the family, a goal similar to the protection of the right to respect for family life guaranteed . .
Cited – Regina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others HL 18-Jul-2002
Corts Martial System Complant with Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by . .
Cited – Blecic 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 . .
Appeal from – Price and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
Cited – Ure v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-1996
The applicant’s tenancy came to an end on expiry of a notice to quit given by his wife, formerly a joint tenant with him, and possession was ordered. The Commission held that his complaint under article 8 was manifestly ill-founded because the . .
Cited – O’Rourke v United Kingdom ECHR 26-Jun-2001
The applicant was a sex offender who on release from prison had found temporary accommodation from which he had been evicted for pestering female residents. He ignored advice to go to a night shelter whilst a decision on permanent re-housing was . .
Cited – Marzari v Italy ECHR 1999
The applicant suffered from metabolic myopathy and was 100 per cent disabled. He was allocated an apartment which he considered inadequate. He ceased paying rent for it, demanding that certain works be carried out to make it suitable for him to live . .
Cited – Buckley v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-1996
The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the . .
Cited – Regina v Huntingdon District Council, Ex parte Cowan QBD 1984
The plaintiff sought judicial review of a refusal of a local authority to grant a liquor licence and a music and dancing licence. Review was sought despite a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.
Held: If other means of redress are . .
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
Cited – McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .
Cited – Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue CA 27-Apr-2001
The defendant resisted accelerated possession proceedings brought for rent arrears under his assured shorthold tenancy, by a private housing association who was a successor to a public authority.
Held: Once the human rights issue was raised, . .
Cited – Mabey v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
A claimant must show a sufficient and continuing link with a place in order to establish that it is his home for purposes of article 8. . .
Cited – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Cited – Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson CA 25-Jan-2002
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – London Street Tramways v London County Council HL 25-Apr-1898
House Decisions binding on Itself
The House laid down principles for the doctrine of precedent. When faced with the hypothesis that a case might have been decided in ignorance of the existence of some relevant statutory provision or in reliance on some statutory provision which was . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Cited – McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown CA 1973
The court was asked to make an order against persons unknown in order to recover land. Although an owner of land which was being occupied by squatters was entitled to take the remedy into his own hand, he was encouraged to go to a common law court . .
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – Gillow v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there.
Held: The house in question was the applicants’ home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not . .
Cited – P v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-1990
The applicants had been evicted, following the service of a notice to quit, from a caravan site where they had lived for many years. The respondent admitted that the eviction constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for . .
Cited – Mellor v Watkins 1874
Allen held a yearly tenancy of premises subject to a yearly sub-tenancy of part. The sub-tenancy was afterwards acquired by the defendant. Allen surrendered his tenancy to the freeholder who re-let the premises to the plaintiff. Neither the tenancy . .
Cited – Pennell v Payne CA 1995
The operation of the break clause in a lease will (in the absence of provision to the contrary) have the effect of terminating not just the lease but also the underlease, and any inferior sub-tenancies. . .
Cited – Fitzleet Estates Ltd v Cherry HL 9-Nov-1977
Income tax – Schedule D, Cases III and VI – Payments of interest and ground rent incurred when property was being developed – Whether capitalised or paid out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and . .
Cited – James Casey and others v Crawley Borough Council Admn 1-Mar-2006
The range of considerations which any public authority should take into account in deciding whether to invoke its powers can be very wide. . .
Cited – Di 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Larkos 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Lincolnshire County Council Ex Parte Atkinson; Regina v Wealden District Council Ex Parte Wales and Others QBD 3-Oct-1995
A local Authority must make proper welfare enquiries before seeking to remove unlawful campers. The new draconic legislation must be seen in its context. The commons of England provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had . .
Cited – Ure v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-1996
The applicant’s tenancy came to an end on expiry of a notice to quit given by his wife, formerly a joint tenant with him, and possession was ordered. The Commission held that his complaint under article 8 was manifestly ill-founded because the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
cplc_pChD2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand and Others CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant squatters sought leave to appeal an order for immediate possession.
Held: (As citeable authority) MacPhail remained good law despite the passing of the 1980 Act, and an order for immediate possession was correct. . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – C Plc v P and Attorney General Intervening CA 22-May-2007
The respondent had been subject to a civil search, which revealed the existence of obscene images of children on his computer. He appealed against refusal of an order that the evidence should not be passed to the police as evidence. He said that the . .
Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD 3-May-2007
There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
Cited – YL v Birmingham City Council and Others HL 20-Jun-2007
The House was asked whether a private care home when providing accommodation and care to a resident under arrangements with a local authority the 1948 Act, is performing ‘functions of a public nature’ for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human . .
Cited – Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Hensley CA 1-Nov-2007
The secure tenant was convicted of cultivating cannabis in the house. The council sought possession, and now appealed an order granting only possession suspended whilst the tenant complied with the terms of the tenancy agreement, seeking outright . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another QBD 29-Oct-2008
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) . .
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 29-Oct-2008
The applicant said that the defendant had unlawfully failed to provide detailed guidance under section 10 of the 1985 Act, on the circumstances under which a prosecution might lie of a person performing acts which might assist another to commit . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Cited – Truro Diocesan Board of Finance Ltd v Foley CA 22-Oct-2008
The tenant appealed against a decision that a deed he had entered into with the claimant did not operate to give him the status of a protected or statutory tenancy.
Held: The tenant had had a full Rent Act tenancy. The Board claimed . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others CA 19-Feb-2009
The claimant suffered a debilitating terminal disease. She anticipated going to commit suicide at a clinic in Switzerland, and wanted first a clear policy so that her husband who might accompany her would know whether he might be prosecuted under . .
Cited – McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield District Council CA 1-Apr-2009
The appellant was a non-secure tenant of the respondent. It had served a notice to quit and he now appealed against an order for possession on public law grounds.
Held: There had been a delay between the issue of the notice to quit and the . .
See Also – Kay and others v Lambeth SCCO 2-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Cited – Central Bedfordshire Council v Housing Action Zone Ltd, Taylor and Others; Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening CA 23-Jun-2009
The authority had granted a lease to a housing society who had in turn granted the occupants’ leases. A successor then revoked the head lease. The occupiers appealed against possession orders, saying that they had come to acquire article 8 rights in . .
Cited – Barber v London Borough of Croydon CA 11-Feb-2010
The tenant who suffered learning and behavioural difficulties appealed against an order for possession of his council flat. He had become aggressive with the caretaker. The council sought possession, and he defended the claim saying that the council . .
Cited – Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd CA 16-Mar-2010
The respondent was a mutual housing co-operative, and the claimant its tenant. The tenant kept a dog in the premises without the consent of the other tenants in breach of the terms of the lease. A notice to quit was served on him. His tenancy was . .
Cited – Salford City Council v Mullen CA 30-Mar-2010
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that . .
Mentioned – Valentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the . .
Cited – Coombes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 8-Mar-2010
The landlord council brought proceedings for possession. The tenant (C) had remained in possession after his mother’s death, but enjoyed no second statutory succession. He had lived there since 1954 when he was six. C sought a declaration of . .
Cited – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
Cited – Regina (GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Regina (C) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 16-Jul-2010
The claimants had each had biometric samples taken during police investigations, and now sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent not to remove those details from the Police National Computer, saying that in accordance with the . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Cited – London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc SC 23-Feb-2011
In each case the tenant occupied the property as his home, but was not a secure tenant of the local authority. The Court was asked whether, in granting a possession order in such a case, the court was obliged to consider the proportionality of the . .
Cited – Young, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Highdown and Another Admn 6-Apr-2011
The claimant complained that he had not been considered for early release on Home Detention Curfew because the policy refused to allow those convicted of knife crimes to be so considered, and: ‘the failure to include other offences in the list of . .
Cited – Howarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
howarth_cmpQBD2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
Cited – Manchester 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 . . .
Cited – Robinson, Regina (on The Application of) v HMP Whatton and Another Admn 4-Dec-2013
Two prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection sought judicial review of arrangements meaning that they had not been given a timely opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are safe to be released. Their . .
Cited – Kaiyam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice CA 9-Dec-2013
The court was asked as to claims arising from the continued detention of the appellants following the expiry of the ‘minimum terms’ or ‘tariff periods’ of their indeterminate terms of imprisonment. The appellant prisoners said that the respondent’s . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
Cited – Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing, Local Government, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.238921

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination

The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make reasonable adjustments.
Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded. Mr Malcolm has not been the subject of unlawful discrimination because Lewisham’s reason for claiming possession did not relate to his disability and he was not treated less favourably than someone without that disability. The Act assumed a knowledge of the fact of the disability – this was not a tort of strict liability – and it had also not been shown that they had known of the tenant’s schizophrenia.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 43, Times 26-Jun-2008, (2008) IRLR 70, [2008] 1 AC 1399, [2008] 3 WLR 194, [2008] 2 P and CR 18, [2008] 26 EG 117, [2008] 4 All ER 525, [2008] NPC 76, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 573, [2008] L and TR 29, (2008) 102 BMLR 170, [2008] BLGR 549, [2008] HLR 41
Bailii, HL
sability Discrimination Act 1995 22(3)(c) 24(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran HL 16-Dec-1987
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the . .
Cited – Sepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .
Cited – H J Heinz Co Ltd v Kenrick EAT 3-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation. . .
Cited – Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solictors EAT 17-Dec-2001
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .
Cited – Taylor v OCS Group Ltd CA 31-May-2006
The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior . .
Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Approved – Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd v Williams CA 14-Dec-2006
Section 24 of the 1995 Act requires the court ‘(i) to identify the treatment of the disabled person that is alleged to constitute discrimination, (ii) to identify the reason for that treatment, (iii) to determine whether the reason relates to the . .
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth EAT 15-Jun-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation . .
Cited – Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the . .
Cited – S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission CA 18-Mar-2008
The court considered the relationship between the two Acts. The assured tenant had fallen into arrears, and was subject to an order for possession. He claimed that his disability required the court not to make an order for possession against her, . .

Cited by:
Cited – Dundee City Council v Malcolm EAT 25-Jul-2008
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Vicarious liability
Sexual harassment claim by an employee of an education authority. Circumstances in which tribunal had misdirected itself as to its own prior judgment and erred in . .
Cited – Stafford and Rural Homes Ltd and Another v Hughes EAT 9-Mar-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
Effect of Malcolm: on the facts of the case the decision in Malcolm did not make any difference to the conclusion. There is no requirement in law to set . .
Cited – Stockton on Tees Borough Council v Aylott EAT 11-Mar-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Extension of time: just and equitable
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability . .
Cited – McClenaghan v Antrim Borough Council NIIT 21-Aug-2008
. .
Cited – Mitchell v Seagate Technology Ireland NIIT 22-Sep-2008
. .
Cited – Palmer v The Social Security Agency NIIT 11-Nov-2008
. .
Cited – Countrywide Estate Agents (Unlimited) and Another v Rice EAT 26-Nov-2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability discrimination
The Employment Tribunal confused the relevant tests for disability discrimination under s.3A of . .
Cited – Holdsworth v Right Price Carpets NIIT 19-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Hose Express Thurrock Ltd v Jacomb EAT 31-Mar-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability related discrimination
The Claimant who is a disabled man claimed that his former employer discriminated against him on grounds of disability and the claim succeeded . .
Cited – Carter v London Underground Ltd and Another EAT 8-May-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Employee dismissed . .
Cited – Miller v The Ridings High School EAT 24-Sep-2008
EAT CONSTRUCTIVE UNFAIR DISMISSAL
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Direct disability discrimination/Disability related discrimination/ Reasonable adjustments
The Claimant claimed constructive unfair . .
Cited – Child Support Agency (Dudley) v Truman EAT 5-Feb-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability related discrimination / Compensation
Whether the Novacold comparator in cases of disability-related discrimination must be replaced in employment cases by the . .
Cited – Chondol v Liverpool City Council EAT 11-Feb-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Social worker dismissed on charges which included inappropriate promotion of his religious beliefs and arranging a visit to his home by a service user in a manner which . .
Cited – Servier Laboratories Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and others Admn 19-Feb-2009
The claimant challenged the failure of the defendant to list its drug strontium ranelate for prescription within the UK. They said that NICE failed to act fairly and with transparency by their failure to supply or disclose to Servier and the other . .
Cited – N, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Independent Appeal Panel CA 24-Feb-2009
The case of Malcolm has overruled Novacold. Toulson LJ said: ‘In Malcolm the House of Lords was concerned with the construction of the same phrase in Part III of the Act. It overruled the decision in Clark v Novacold and held that the proper . .
Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Cited – Barber v London Borough of Croydon CA 11-Feb-2010
The tenant who suffered learning and behavioural difficulties appealed against an order for possession of his council flat. He had become aggressive with the caretaker. The council sought possession, and he defended the claim saying that the council . .
Cited – Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd CA 17-Mar-2010
The tenant had been ordered to leave her flat. She had kept a dog in breach of her tenancy agreement. The landlord had terminated the assured shorthold tenancy by a section 21 notice. She said that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments to . .
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Cited – Brill v Interactive Business Communications Ltd CA 9-Dec-2010
The claimant had issued proceedings for unfair dismissal, but his appeal against refusal of permission to amend his claim to allow a claim for disability discrimination had succeeded at the EAT. At the time when the claim had been made, the law . .
Cited – Ward v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination) EAT 17-May-2013
EAT Disability related discrimination
Direct disability discrimination
Claim for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. Employment Tribunal upheld one claim of a failure to make reasonable . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
Cited – Hotak 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 . .
Cited – Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme and Another SC 17-Dec-2018
The appellant complained of disability discrimination. He retired early suffering Tourette’s syndrome. He had worked part time, and the parties now disputed his pension entitlements.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination

Leading Case

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.270387

Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson: CA 18 Nov 1999

The Court considered service of a notice under the 1988 Act: ”Serve’ is an ordinary English word connoting the delivery of a document to a particular person.’

Lord Justice Peter Gibson,
And,
Lord Justice Ward
[1999] EWCA Civ 3045, (1999) 32 HLR 866
Bailii
Housing Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Housing

Leading Case

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.431612

Ansari v London Borough of Southwark: UTLC 22 May 2015

UTLC HOUSING – prohibition notice- under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 – application for permission to appeal out of time – representation by housing authority – whether ‘good reason’ for delay in applying for permission to appeal out of time – schedule 2, paragraph 10 Housing Act 2004 – whether waiver by housing authority – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKUT 204 (LC)
Bailii
Housing Act 2004
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.548086

Wood v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: UTLC 15 Apr 2015

UTLC HOUSING – enforcement action – improvement notice targeting hazard in a flat in a section 257 HMO – hazard arising from deficiency in neighbouring flat – notice served on owners of both flats requiring alternative remedial action – whether alternative remedies permissible – whether service on two owners permissible – sharing of cost of remedial action – ss. 11-13 and paras 1-4, 11 and 16, Sched 1, Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed

[2015] UKUT 0165 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546182

Hastings Borough Council v Braear Developments Ltd: UTLC 21 Apr 2015

UTLC HOUSING – enforcement action – service of improvement notice requiring work to common parts of building – building under management of RTM Company – whether notice to be served on landlord, lessees or RTM Company – ss 262-263 and paras 1 to 5, Part 1, Schedule 1, Housing Act 2004 – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKUT 145 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546180

Clark v Manchester City Council: UTLC 27 Mar 2015

UTLC HOUSING – house in multiple occupation – whether appeal from decision of local housing authority to First-tier Tribunal to be a review or re-hearing – proper approach on rehearing – whether local housing authority entitled to impose mandatory minimum space requirement for bedrooms in HMOs – Part 2, Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed

[2015] UKUT 129 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546175

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v TM: CA 20 Dec 2021

This second appeal arises from a claim for possession of rented residential premises and concerns the impact on such a claim of the public sector equality duty (‘the PSED’), set out in s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Lord Justice Green,
Lord Justice Nugee,
And,
Lord Justice Snowden
[2021] EWCA Civ 1890
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.670637

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 review. The Council appealed.
Held: The appeal failed.

Moore-Bck VP CA, Underhill, Briggs LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 14
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 175
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541549

Mykolyshyn v Noah: 1971

When offering alternative accomodation to a tenant to recover possession, it may be appropriate for a landlord to offer a new lease of part only of the premises now occupied.

[1971] 1 All ER 48
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.216660

Salter v Lask: 1925

A tenant’s husband came within the statute which provided for a surviving spouse to take over a tenancy on the death of the former tenant, even though a widower of the tenant was not expressly mentioned in the legislation,

Salter J
[1925] 1 KB 584
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.215914

Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another: CA 25 Nov 2008

The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court.

Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Justice Jacob and Sir William Aldous
[2008] EWCA Civ 1501, Times 12-Jan-2009, [2008] 48 EG 100, [2009] L and TR 19, [2009] 4 All ER 71, [2009] 1 EGLR 35, [2009] 1 WLR 2192, [2009] 10 EG 112, [2009] CP Rep 17
Bailii
Housing Act 1980 89
England and Wales
Citing:
not preferred – Bain and Co v Church Commissioners for England ChD 1989
Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling . .
Applied – Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd QBD 14-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with . .
Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.279977

Palmview Estates Ltd v Thurrock Council: CA 9 Dec 2021

Proper construction of, and approach to, the statutory defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ contained in section 72(5) of the Housing Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’). The defence is available to a defendant in proceedings brought under section 72(1) of the 2004 Act which creates the offence of having control of or managing a house in multiple occupation which is required to be licensed under Part 2 of the 2004 Act but is not licensed.

Lady Justice King,
Lady Justice Asplin,
And,
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing
[2021] EWCA Civ 1871
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.670339

Jakimaviciute, Regina (on The Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: CA 6 Nov 2014

The Council’s power unders section 160ZA(7) allowing it to set the criteria for qualifying to be allocated housing did not displace its duties under section 166A(3) to give priority to the identified classes of housing applicants. That included those to whom a duty was owed y virtue of section 193(2).

Richards, Tomlinson, Bean LJJ
[2015] PTSR 822, [2015] 3 All ER 490, [2014] WLR(D) 478, [2015] HLR 5, [2014] EWCA Civ 1438, [2015] BLGR 306
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Act 1996 160ZA(7) 166A(3) 193(2)
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538315

Morris v Blackpool Borough Council and Another: CA 24 Oct 2014

The court was asked as to the proper construction of standard leases granted by the Council to its tenants, and, in particular whether it was entitled to charge certain management/administration charges as part of the service charge recoverable under those leases.

Jackson, McCombe, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1384, [2015] HLR 2
Bailii
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538011

Nzolameso v City of Westminster: CA 22 Oct 2014

The authority accepted that it owed a duty to house the appellant, and that she was unable to afford the rents payable on housing within the district after reductions in housing benefits. She was offered but refused, housing im Milton Keynes.

Moore-Bick VP CA, Black, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1383, [2015] HLR 1, [2015] BLGR 52, [2015] PTSR 211
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537940

AA v London Borough of Southwark: QBD 14 Oct 2014

The claimant sought damages after, he said, being unlawfully evicted by the respondent.
Held: The authority had behaved unlawfully and officers had conspired to evict the claimant at any cost.

Anthony Thornton QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 500 (QB)
Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Loveridge v London Borough of Lambeth SC 3-Dec-2014
The Council had granted a weekly secure tenancy of the premises to the appellant. The Court considered the calculation of damages awarded for an unlawful eviction of a residential tenant.
Held: Section 28(1)(a) requires the basis of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537742

Fisher, Re Park Crescent Mews West: UTLC 10 Sep 2014

UTLC FAIR RENT – operation of capping provisions where landlord no longer provides services previously included within the rent but not constituting ‘variable sums’ – section 70 Rent Act 1977 – Rent Act (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999

[2014] UKUT 402 (LC)
Bailii
Rent Act 1977 70, Rent Act (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537501

Ajilore v London Borough of Hackney: CA 8 Oct 2014

Appeal against an order dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the review decision of the respondent local housing authority.
Underhill LJ discussed statistical evidence on a section 202 review in relation to an applicant who was said to be a suicide risk if he was made homeless: ‘[E]ven if it is right, as seems plausible enough even in the absence of statistics, that the incidence of suicide is higher among homeless people than in the remainder of the population, I am not sure how that is relevant to the question which the reviewing officer had to decide. It might show only that a disproportionate number of people with the kind of history or personality that renders them specially liable to attempt suicide tend to be made homeless. The fact that there might be disproportionately many such people in the homeless population would not in itself mean that they were any the less vulnerable within the meaning of section 189 (1)(c) – any more than it would if there were a disproportionately large number of homeless people suffering from severe mental illness. The question of who constitutes the ‘ordinary homeless person’ . . cannot be answered purely statistically.’

Gloster, Underhill, Floyd LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1273
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 202
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hotak 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.

Housing

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537422

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton and Others: CA 21 Jul 2011

Appeal from possession order – house occupied by school caretaker.

Maurice Kay VP, Carnwath, Lloyf LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 834, [2011] Eq LR 1167, [2011] HLR 46, [2011] NPC 79, (2011) 14 CCL Rep 617, [2011] 30 EG 57, [2012] PTSR 56
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 49A, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales

Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.442015

Greater London Council v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: 1983

(1983) 15 HLR 57
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.235387

Regina v Southwark London Borough Council ex parte Hughes: 1983

Turner J said: ‘Housing is about the most basic social requirement of an individual. It is not conceptual, it is factual. The Housing Act is intended to be of social effect. It may be thought therefore that there are compelling reasons why the circumstances of an individual at the time the inquiry is carried out and the decision made, must be the circumstances which the local authority is required to investigate for the purpose of coming to their decision whether or not the applicant is homeless’

Turner J
[1983] 30 HLR 1082
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ealing London Borough Council v Surdonja etc CA 21-Jan-2000
When a local authority came to make the decision about the extent of the local connection of the homelessness applicant with the area, the assessment was to be made as regards the situation at the date of that decision. Where there was a review, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.229856

A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger: HL 10 Nov 1988

In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to occupy it so as to create no more than a licence.
Held: Behaviour by the parties after a tenancy areement was not relevant in construing the tenancy agreement, but can be used to see whether the document properly reflected what the parties intended. Such surrounding circumstances include ‘any relationship between the prospective occupiers, the course of negotiations and the nature and extent of the accommodation and the intended and actual mode of occupation.’ The documents were interdependent, and in fact the tenants had enjoyed exclusive occupation. The clause allowing additional occupiers was a sham. The two agreements had to be read together. The parties could not contract out of the Rent Acts, and clause 16 did not reflect the true position and that accordingly clause 16 should be struck out.
In A G Securities, four tenants of a property had signed separate documents at different times. They now claimed to have one joint tenancy rather than licence agreements as claimed by the landlord.
Held: The court will look to the substance and reality of the transaction entered into by the parties, not just the apparent form. Nevertheless, in this case the rigts and duties having been created originally as several obligations, could not become joint.
Lord Templeman said: ‘Where a landlord creates a tenancy of a flat and reserves the right to go into exclusive occupation at any time of the whole or part of the flat with or without notice, that reservation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Acts and cannot be enforced without an order of the court under section 98. Where a landlord creates a tenancy of a flat and reserves the right to go into occupation of the whole or part of the flat with or without notice, jointly with the existing tenants, that reservation also is inconsistent with the provisions of the Acts. Were it otherwise every tenancy agreement would be labelled a licence and would contract out of the Rent Acts by reserving power to the landlord to share possession with the tenant at any time after the commencement of the term.
Clause 16 is a reservation to Mr Antoniades of the right to go into occupation or to nominate others to enjoy occupation of the whole of the flat jointly with Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger. Until that power is exercised Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger are jointly in exclusive occupation of the whole flat making periodical payments and they are therefore tenants. The Rent Acts prevents the exercise of a power which would destroy the tenancy of Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger and would deprive them of the exclusive occupation of the flat which they are now enjoying. Clause 16 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Acts.
There is separate and alternative reason why clause 16 must be ignored. Clause 16 was not a genuine reservation to Mr Antoniades of the power to share the flat and a power to authorise other persons to share the flat. Mr Antoniades did not genuinely intend to exercise the powers save possibly to bring pressure to bear to obtain possession. Clause 16 was only intended to deprive Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger of the protection of the Rent Acts. Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger had no choice in the matter.’
Lord Bridge said: ‘Here the artificiality was in the pretence that two contemporaneous and identical agreements entered into by a man and a woman who were going to live together in a one-bedroom flat and share a double bed created rights and obligations which were several rather than joint. As to the nature of those rights and obligations, the provisions of the joint agreement purporting to retain the right in the respondent to share the occupation of the flat with the young couple himself or to introduce an indefinite number of third parties to do so could be seen, in the relevant circumstances, to be repugnant to the true purpose of the agreement. No one could have supposed that those provisions were ever intended to be acted on. They were introduced into the agreement for no other purpose than as an attempt to disguise the true character of the agreement which it was hoped would deceive the court and prevent the appellants enjoying the protection of the Rent Acts. As your Lordships all agree, the attempt fails.’

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
[1988] 1 EGLR 36, [1990] 1 AC 417, [1988] 3 WLR 1205, [1988] UKHL 8, [1988] 3 All ER 1058
Bailii
Rent Act 1977 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Dictum approved – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Appeal from – Antoniades v Villiers and Another CA 17-Mar-1988
The court considered whether a license agreement was a sham and that a tenancy had been created. Bingham LJ said: ‘Where a written agreement is not held to be a sham, the task of the court, as with any other agreement, is to construe it and give . .
Cited – Cole v Harris 1945
The court was aksed whether a single room was let as a separate dwelling.
Held: Sharing of the use of a bathroom or toilet need not prevent a tenancy being protected. . .
Cited – Neale v Del Soto CA 1945
A letting of two of a number of rooms in a property together with joint use with the landlord of the kitchen, bathroom, lavatory and conservatory was not a letting of the two rooms as a separate dwelling, but a sharing of the property. The letting . .
Cited – Curl v Angelo CA 1948
Two rooms were let to the proprietor of an adjoining hotel as additional accommodation for the hotel. They were used mainly for guests but occasionally for the hotel tenant’s family or staff. One such claimed security of tenure.
Held: The . .
Cited – Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder 1978
Mr Fielder and Miss Maxwell together applied to take a self-contained flat. Each signed an agreement to pay andpound;54.17 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. The couple moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. . .
Cited – Hadjiloucas v Crean CA 1988
Two ladies applied to take two-roomed flat with kitchen and bathroom. Each signed an agreement to pay pounds 260 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. They moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. In terms, if . .
Cited – Sturolson v Weniz CA 1984
The plaintiffs took occupation under an agreement which purported to grant a non exclusive right of possession of the flat, and to be personal. Occupation could only be shared with persons approved in advance by L. L’s agent had said the agreement . .
Cited – Somma v Hazelhurst CA 1978
A young unmarried couple H and S occupied a double bedsitting room for which they paid a weekly rent. The landlord did not provide services or attendance and the couple were not lodgers but tenants enjoying exclusive possession.
Held: The . .
Cited – Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .

Cited by:
Cited – Homebase Ltd and Another v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc CA 17-May-2002
The tenant held land under a lease restricting the terms of any underletting. It wanted to sublet part, but could find no tenant who would take the terms. It sought to let the property in a sub-lease which complied formally with the head-lease but . .
Cited – Parkins v City of Westminster CA 20-Nov-1997
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had . .
Cited – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .
Cited – Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another CA 24-Apr-2001
A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from pounds 4,680, to pounds 25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit . .
Cited – Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2); Duke v Wynne CA 27-Jun-1989
Occupiers claimed that they had secure tenancies. The owner said that they were mere lodgers. In Murphy (1), the landlord said that the occupier must share possession with other occupiers if required. He now said that he had retained a key and that . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract, Housing

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.181340

Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001

A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from pounds 4,680, to pounds 25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit would be insufficient.
Held: The agreement to increase the rent was a sham. The purpose of the agreement was to grant an assured tenancy, and therefore the purpose was to provide security. The rent increase was never expected to be paid, and although the Act left the parties to agree their rent, the increased amount when properly analysed was not rent, but a way of defeating the tenant’s security.

Pill, Arden LJJ
Times 24-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 528, [2001] L and TR 27, [2001] 16 EGCS 145, [2002] HLR 42, [2001] 26 EG 164, [2001] 2 EGLR 36, [2001] 1 WLR 1369, [2001] NPC 74
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Street 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: . .
Cited – L’Estrange v F Graucob Limited CA 1934
The company’s order form contained a clause providing them with complete exemption from liability: ‘Any express or implied, condition, statement of warranty, statutory or otherwise is expressly excluded’.
Held: If a party signs a written . .
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Cited – Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA 12-Nov-1987
Incorporation of Onerous Terms Requires More Care
Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
Held: The plaintiff had not . .

Cited by:
Cited – Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others SC 27-Jul-2011
Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers
The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.78168

Jean Mcgovern v The Scottish Ministers for Suspension and Interdict: SCS 28 Aug 2014

Outer House – The petitioner sought suspension of a decree for removal, dated and extracted respectively on 7 and 21 May 2014, and interdict against the respondents prohibiting them from evicting the petitioner and her daughter from 167 Foresthall Drive, Glasgow. The petitioner sought interim orders on the basis that she was due to be evicted on 22 July 2014.
Held: refused

Lord Carloway, Lord Justice Clerk
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 134
Bailii

Scotland, Housing

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536360

Statileo v Croatia: ECHR 10 Jul 2014

ECHR Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Obligation under protected tenancy legislation for landlord to let property for indefinite period without adequate rent: violation
Facts – The applicant owned a 66 square metre flat in Split occupied by a tenant who had been granted a specially protected tenancy in the 1950s. Specially protected tenancies were abolished in 1996 by the Lease of Flats Act, which provided that the holders of such tenancies in respect of privately owned flats were to become ‘protected tenants’. Private owners were required to enter into lease contracts of indefinite duration with the former holders of specially protected tenancies at a ‘protected rent’ that was significantly lower than the market rent. The applicant was subsequently ordered by the domestic courts to grant a lease to his former specially protected tenant at a monthly rent of approximately EUR 14. In his application to the European Court he complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unable to regain possession of his flat or charge a market rent.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The interference with the applicant’s property rights constituted a measure of control of the use of his property and was aimed at promoting the economic well-being of the country and the protection of the rights of others. Under the system established by the Lease of Flats Act, landlords had little or no influence on the choice of tenant or the essential terms of the lease such as its duration or the rights to terminate. A landlord who intended to move into the flat or install his or her members of his family was allowed to terminate only if he had no other accommodation and was entitled to permanent social assistance or was over sixty and the lessee owned suitable accommodation in the same municipality. Such rules left little or no possibility for landlords to regain possession as the likelihood of protected tenants leaving voluntarily was generally remote. Moreover, landlords were under obligations to maintain the flat in a condition suitable for habitation and to pay a condominium fee to cover the costs of maintaining the building in which the flat was located.
The landlords’ right to derive profits from the flat was subject to statutory restrictions. They were entitled to receive a protected rent, which was sometimes lower than the condominium fee they had to pay for maintenance. In addition, they had to pay income tax on the rent received, while the market value of the property dropped because of the protected tenancy. The amount of rent received by the applicant was about 25 times lower than the market rent and thus grossly disproportionate. While it was true that the States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in measures such as the control of rent levels, the margin was not unlimited and the consequences of such measures could not be contrary to the Convention standards. The Court recognised that, in the context of the fundamental reform of the country’s political, legal and economic system during the transition for the socialist regime to a democratic state, the had Croatian authorities faced an exceptionally difficult task in having to balance the rights of landlords and the protected tenants who occupied their flats for a long time. However, the Court was unable to discern a demand of general interest capable of justifying such comprehensive restrictions on the applicant’s property rights. In the present case there had been no fair distribution of the social and financial burden resulting from the reform of the housing sector. Instead, a disproportionate and excessive individual burden was placed on the applicant as a landlord as he was required to bear most of the social and financial costs of providing housing for the protected tenant and his family. The Croatian authorities had thus failed to strike the requisite balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicant’s property rights.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 8,200 in respect of pecuniary and EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

12027/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 869
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535699

Aster Communities Ltd v Akerman-Livingstone: CA 30 Jul 2014

The respondent tenant had resisted possession proceedings on the basis of his disability.
Held: The court facing such a defence should treat it in the same way as it would an argument that the tenat’s article 8 Human rights were threatened.

Arden, Black, Briggs LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1081, [2014] WLR(D) 350
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Equality Act 2010
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535441

Gillow v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Nov 1986

The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there.
Held: The house in question was the applicants’ home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not established any other home elsewhere in the United Kingdom and had retained ‘sufficient continuing links’ with the house for it to be considered their home for the purposes of article 8. ‘It was . . established that the island of Guernsey should be regarded as a ‘territory for the international relations of which the U.K. is responsible’ for the purposes of treaty provisions in the terms of Article 4 of this Protocol; and this practice has been followed with regard to treaties concluded within the framework of the Council of Europe including the Convention (Article [56]). It thus clearly results from the text of Article 4 that an express declaration is required for the application of the Protocol to the island of Guernsey’. The United Kingdom had not made a declaration extending the Protocol to Guernsey and the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.

9063/80, (1986) 11 EHRR 335, 13/1984/85/132, [1986] ECHR 14, [1987] ECHR 23, [1987] ECHR 23, [1986] ECHR 14
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – Quark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 22-Jul-2003
The respondent had failed to renew the claimant’s license to fish in the South Atlantic for Patagonian Toothfish. The refusal had been found to be unlawful. The claimant now sought damages.
Held: English law does not generally provide a remedy . .
Cited – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc SC 23-Feb-2011
In each case the tenant occupied the property as his home, but was not a secure tenant of the local authority. The Court was asked whether, in granting a possession order in such a case, the court was obliged to consider the proportionality of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.164962

Kanu v The London Borough of Southwark: CA 29 Jul 2014

Mr Kanu, aged 48, had physical problems, including back pain, hepatitis B, hypertension and haemorrhoids, as well as psychotic symptoms and suicidal ideation. His wife assisted him in taking the necessary drugs, but stress would raise his hypertension to ‘quite dangerous levels’, requiring an increase in the dose of the relevant drugs. An order for possession had been made against Mr Kanu and he applied for housing. The Council now appealed against a decision quashing their review officer’s decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act to uphold its earlier decision that the Respondent was not in priority need for accommodation within the meaning of section 189(1) of the Act.
Held: The applicant’s particular disability was not so severe as to leave him vulnerable and in need of assistance.

Aikens, Kitchin, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1085, [2014] WLR(D) 344, [2014] PTSR 1197
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Act 1996 189(1) 202, Equality Act 2010 149
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hotak 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 . .
Cited – Hotak 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.

Housing

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535400

Tiffany Investments Ltd and Another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Limited and others: CA 4 Dec 2003

The tenancy was a long lease at a low rent under the 1954 Act, and so had continuing protection under the 1977 Act whilst occupied by the original tenant. The lease was assigned and registered. It had been conditional upon an application to purchase the reversion, which did not proceed.
Held: subject to the effect of section 17 of the 1954 Act, the Lessors became entitled to an equitable interest in the Lease commensurate with that of a purchaser under a binding contract for sale. The section did not invalidate either the provisions of clause 5 or any of the steps which should have been taken thereunder and therefore has no effect on the creation of the equitable interest which had priority over any interest of either of Tiffany or Ms Chantry.

Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Waller The Vice-Chancellor
[2003] EWCA Civ 1759
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part I 17, Rent Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pritchard v Briggs CA 1980
A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported . .
Cited – Bircham and Co, Nominees; Limited and Another v Worrell Holdings Ltd CA 22-May-2001
Whether an agreement is enforceable for the sale of the remainder of the term of a lease following the exercise (or purported exercise) of rights of pre-emption . .
Cited – Kling v Keston Properties Ltd ChD 1985
The plaintiff had and exercised a right of pre-emption entitling him to take a long lease of a garage. He was at the time also licensee of the garage.
Held: The use of the garage amounted to actual occupation, thereby protecting the right as . .
Cited – Tuck v Baker CA 1992
A party sought to enforce a notice exercising a right of pre-emption. The defendant purported to withdraw it.
Held: An offer (once made) can be withdrawn at any time before it has been converted by acceptance into a binding contract.
Cited – Carington v Wycombe Railway Co 1868
. .
Cited – London and South Western Railway Company v Blackmore HL 5-Jul-1870
In 1861 the railway company used its statutory powers to buy some of Mr Blackmore’s land for railway purposes. In 1864 they had a dispute over their boundary. This was settled by an agreement that he should build a wall to be maintained at their . .
Cited – Butts Park Ventures (Coventry) Limited v Bryant Homes Central Limited ChD 29-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Joseph v Joseph CA 1967
The words in section 38(1) ‘purports to’ means ‘has the effect that’ so that an agreement to give up possession in two years when the lease would still have six years to run infringed section 38 as it would preclude an application or request for a . .
Cited – Re Hennessey 1975
A long lease at a premium and a low rent comprised three rooms at the top of a building. Clause 7 provided that the landlord should be entitled to buy the residue of the lease for andpound;2,500 if either the tenant gave notice to the landlord that . .
Cited – Allnatt Properties Ltd v Newton ChD 1981
A business lease provided that if the tenant wished to assign, he must first offer a surrender to the landlord for the net premium value. If the landlord did not accept, then he could apply for consent to assign, such consent not to be unreasonably . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.188414

McDonald 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 obtained an order for possession. She appealed against an order, saying that the duty to act proportionately under the Human Rights Act fell also as against a private landlord, and that the Court must read the 1980Act to give a discretion to allow for her human rights.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. Article 8 could not be invoked by a residential occupier in possession proceedings brought by a private sector landowner, as a ground for opposing the making of, or the terms of, the order for possession. However, they considered that, if article 8 could have been invoked in this case, the judge would have been wrong to dismiss the claim as he had indicated that he would have done.

Arden, Tomlinson, Ryder LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1049, [2014] 2 P and CR 20, [2015] 2 WLR 567, [2015] Ch 357, [2014] HLR 43, [2014] WLR(D) 336, [2014] BPIR 1270, [2015] 1 All ER 1041, [2015] 1 CH 357, [2015] Ch 359, [2014] 3 EGLR 30
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Human Rights Act 1998, Housing Act 1980
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535254

Clickex Ltd v McCann: CA 26 May 1999

A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create a shorthold tenancy. The divisional court had decided that the landlord’s possession action had failed, but that the notice had been effective to create only a shorthold tenancy. The tenant appealed, but the landlord took no part saying the tenant had already achieved what he required.
Held: The error was of the non-obvious kind, and failed to meet the test as described in Mannai, and it was ineffective. The tenancy was an assured tenany, not a shorthold tenancy.

Butler-Sloss LJ, Holman J
Times 26-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1416, [1999] 2 EGLR 63, (1999) 32 HLR 6324
Bailii
Housing Act 1988 20
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee CA 1999
The Court of Appeal was itself able to remit the case back direct to the rent assessment committee for a new determination of the rent, exercising the power of the court below: ‘If … McCullough J ‘s rulings on the substantive issue are wrong or . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.79222

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Marilyn Hislop: ChD 5 Dec 2003

conflict between a landlord’s claim to possession and a tenant’s claim to exercise her right to buy, both being claims arising under the Housing Act 1985.

The Hon Mr Justice Lindsay
[2003] EWHC 2944 (Ch), [2004] 1 All ER 1036
Bailii
Housing Act 1985
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Basildon District Council v Wahlen CA 28-Mar-2006
The tenant was a successor tenant with security, and sought to exercise his right to buy. The authority itself claimed possession saying that the property was too large.
Held: The statute gave rise to competing claims.The tenant’s right to buy . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.188425

Wilkes v Goodwin: CA 1923

The supply of a cup of tea to a tenant each morning is not sufficient to constitute ‘board’ so as to take the tenancy out of statutory protection.
Unless the contrary intention appears, the law disregards certain things as de minimis. The principle applies where something is ‘so trifling in value, or in amount, as to be negligible’.

Bankes LJ
[1923] 2 KB 86, [1923] All ER 61
England and Wales
Cited by:
Dictum approved – Wood v Carwardine 2-Jan-1923
The court held that trivial services, the amount of which could be measured, did not amount to ‘attendance’ within the meaning of section 12(2)(i) of the 1920 Act. The rule had to be applied with robust vigour in favour of the tenant unless the . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245816

McNerny v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 1988

The scale of the dampness which had to be endured by a tenant led to constant colds and minor ailments being suffered by the plaintiff and her children who had to live in those unhealthy conditions.
Held: The legislature had ‘conspicuously refrained’ from updating the statutory rent limit and it was therefore not for the courts to create liabilities which Parliament had not thought fit to enact. In a field such as housing law, which is very much a matter for the allocation of resources in accordance with democratically determined priorities, the development of the common law should not get out of step with legislative policy. There was no liability under the Act for a design defect in premises causing condensation, as this did was not disrepair and therefore was not covered by the landlords covenant to repair/maintain under section 11.

Dillon, Taylor LJJ, Sir John Megaw
(1988) 21 HLR 188, [1988] EWCA Civ 2, [1989] 1 EGLR 81, [1989] 19 EG 77
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – Issa (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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.186076

Feyereisel v Turnidge: CA 1952

The court considered what premises were protected under the Rent Acts. A bungalow had been let with a campsite.
Held: The dominant purpose was for business use, and the tenancy of the bungalow was not protected.
Denning LJ: ‘The guiding light through the darkness of the Rent Acts is to remember that they confer personal security on a tenant in respect of his home. The Acts apply to dwelling-houses, not to business premises. This is shown by the opening words of section 12(2) of the Act of 1920 which applied the Acts to houses ‘let as a separate dwelling’ and section 3 of the Act of 1939 which applies the Acts to ‘dwelling-houses’. Those are the governing words. The remaining words of those sections are concerned with marginal cases, such as a house where the front rooms are used as a shop; and a house let with a field, and so on.’
Somervell LJ: ‘There was a time when business premises were included, but it is common ground that it is now dealing with dwelling-houses.’

Denning LJ, Romer LJ, Somervell LJ
[1952] 2 QB 29
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245804

Langford Property Co Ltd v Goldrich: CA 1949

The premises consisted of two flats in a single block, which had previously been separately let. They were on the same floor but not next to each other. The tenant had taken these two flats ‘as a home for himself and some relatives . . his father, mother and a married sister’. He had made no structural alterations The court was asked whether the two self-contained flats let together could constitute ‘a separate dwelling-house’.
Held: Two apartments in a building may constitute one dwelling-house if they are let as one and occupied as one.
Somervell LJ said: ‘In my opinion if the facts justify such a finding, two flats or, indeed, so far as I can see, two houses, could be let as a separate dwelling-house within the meaning of the definition. What happened here was that the tenant wished to accommodate in his home these relatives to whom I have referred, and he wanted more accommodation than could be found or conveniently found in one flat. He therefore took the two flats and made those two flats his home. [Counsel] suggested at one time that there might be some absurdity, if, say, a man took under a single lease (which does not seem very probable) two flats in widely separated districts; but that case can be dealt with when it arises.’

Somervell LJ
[1949] 1 KB 511, [1949] All ER 402
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245802

Wright v Howell: CA 1947

To be counted as a separate dwelling, the accomodation provided, must be enough to allow the tennt to carry out the major activities of life, including sleeping, cooking and eating.

(1947) 92 Sol Jo 26
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245810

London Borough of Hackney v Ezedinma: QBD 1981

The house had rooms let for students in the basement and on the ground, first and second floors, with kitchens on the top three floors to serve the rooms. Five rooms had been let when the authority issued a notice under section 19(1) to restrict the number of households to three. The agent let a further three rooms, and the authority prosecuted him, saying that there weer no eight households in breach of the notice. The authority appealed dismissal of the summons.
Held: The authority’s appeal failed. The respondent was the occupier within 19(2). What amounts to a household is a question of fact in the circumstances, but one room could constitute a household.

May J
[1981] 3 All ER 439
Housing Act 1961 19(2) 19(10), Housing Act 1964 67(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Simmons v Pizzey HL 1979
As to houses in multiple occupation, ‘both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive’. After reference to the the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Richards v The Legal Services Commission Admn 19-Jul-2006
The claimant challenged the inclusion in her gross income for calculation of her eligibility to legal aid of maintenance payments received for her children who were both at University. She said that since she had responsibility for their . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.243373

Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council: HL 21 Oct 1999

Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a positive duty to require an improvement in the sound-proofing of a building, well beyond standards which had applied at the time when the houses were built. This applied even though the noise would not now be acceptable. In such circumstances, there was no nuisance committed. Acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to action. The covenant for quiet enjoyment is broken if the landlord or someone claiming under him does anything which substantially interferes with the tenant’s title to or possession of the demised premises or with his ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the demised premises. The interference need not be direct or physical.
Lord Millet said that it was not enough for a landowner to act reasonably in his own interest. He must be considerate of the interest of his neighbour. The governing principle is good neighbourliness, and this involves reciprocity. The landlord or landowner must show the same consideration for his neighbour as he would expect his neighbour to show for him. There has, therefore, to be a balance, on both sides, between the use and enjoyment of one’s own land and the use and enjoyment by one’s neighbour of his land. However for a landlord to become liable in nuisance for his tenant’s acts, it is not enough ‘to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it. They must either participate directly in the commission of the nuisance, or they must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The covenant has a very long history. It has been expressed or implied in conveyances and leases of English land for centuries. It comes from a time when, in a conveyancing context, the words ‘quiet enjoyment’ had a technical meaning different from what they would today signify to a non-lawyer who was unacquainted with their history.’

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde, Lord Millett
Times 22-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P and CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L and TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138
House of Lords, Bailii
Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 12, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hart v Windsor CexC 1843
‘There is no contract, still less a condition, implied by law on the demise of real property only, that it is fit for the purpose for which it is let.’ . .
First instance – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others ChD 11-Mar-1998
A claim for a breach of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment, through the sound of normal activities from a neighbour being heard, succeeded. . .
Cited – Edler v Auerbach 1950
Devlin J said: ‘It is the business of the tenant, if he does not protect himself by an express warranty, to satisfy himself that the premises are fit for the purpose for which he wants to use them, whether that fitness depends upon the state of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – McNerny v London Borough of Lambeth CA 1988
The scale of the dampness which had to be endured by a tenant led to constant colds and minor ailments being suffered by the plaintiff and her children who had to live in those unhealthy conditions.
Held: The legislature had ‘conspicuously . .
Cited – Jenkins v Jackson ChD 1888
Kekewich J said that the word ‘quietly’ in the covenant for quiet possession in a lease ‘does not mean undisturbed by noise. When a man is quietly in possession it has nothing whatever to do with noise . . ‘Peaceably and quietly’ means without . .
Cited – Kenny v Preen 15-Oct-1962
A landlord’s threats to evict the tenant, accompanied by repeated shouting and knocking on her door, was held to be a breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment. The court explained that ‘the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation of . .
Appeal from – London Borough of Southwark v Mills and Others CA 29-Jul-1998
The authority appealed against an award made in arbitration proceedings brought by its tenant who complained that she could hear everything happening in a neighbouring flat, even though the tenants of that flat wer acting reaosnably.
Held: . .
Cited – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865
The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees.
Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was . .
Cited – Phelps v City of London Corporation 1916
Peterson J said it was ‘at least doubtful’ whether a nuisance by noise was a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. . .
Cited – Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited) 6-Nov-1863
. .
Cited – Spoor v Green CExC 1874
There had been an assignment of a lease of coal mines but at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff, the coals had already been substantially worked out. The grantor did not have title in the coals and was in breach of the covenant of title. . .
Cited – Anderson v Oppenheimer CA 1880
The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant ‘peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by . .
Cited – Lyttelton Times Company Ltd v Warners Ltd PC 1906
(New Zealand) The plaintiffs owned a hotel in Christchurch, next to the premises in which the defendants operated a printing press running 24 hours. They made an agreement under which the defendants would rebuild their premises and grant a lease of . .
Cited – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
Cited – Sanderson v Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation 1884
The Corporation let a farm to Sanderson. It reserved in favour of Cairns, another tenant farmer, the rights to use a drain across one of Sanderson’s fields and to enter and repair it. Water discharged by Cairns leaked through the drain and flooded . .
Cited – Sampson v Hodson-Pressinger CA 1981
The defendant owned a Victorian house which had been converted vertically into apartments. He let them to tenants under agreements containing the usual covenant of quiet enjoyment. One of the upper storey apartments had made use of the flat roof of . .
Cited – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871
The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. The defendants occupied the top floor. A rat gnawed through a box in which rain water was collected from the roof, causing a leak into the plaintiff’s property, causing damage. No . .
Cited – Kiddle v City Business Properties Ltd CA 1942
Goddard LJ said: ‘[The plaintiff] takes the property as he finds it and must put up with the consequences. It is not to be supposed that the landlord is going to alter the construction, unless he consents to do so. He would say to his intending . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .
Cited – Duke of Westminster v Guild CA 1985
The court was asked whether a landlord was obliged to repair a drain serving the demised premises which passed under the landlord’s retained land.
Held: No such obligation could be implied and it did not fall within the scope of the covenant . .
Cited – Bamford v Turnley 5-Nov-1860
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great . .
Cited – Jane Robbins, Administratrix of Edwin James Robbins, Deceased v Jones 16-Nov-1863
It is for the grantee of an easement, and not the grantor, to maintain and repair the subject matter of the easement, with a duty to do so if by his neglect the servient tenement suffers damage. . .
Cited – Malzy v Eichholz CA 1916
A landlord is not liable in damages to his lessee under a covenant for quiet enjoyment in respect of a nuisance caused by another of his lessees, even if he knows the lessee is causing the nuisance and takes no steps to prevent it. To be liable for . .
Cited – Dennett v Atherton 1872
The covenant for quiet enjoyment cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose. . .
Cited – Ball v Ray 1873
The occupier of a house in a street in Mayfair had many years previously converted the ground floor into a stable. A new occupier altered the location of the stable so that the noise of the horses became an annoyance to the next-door neighbour and . .
Cited – Leech v Schweder CA 1874
Mellish LJ said: ‘It is perfectly true that the lessee is ‘to hold and enjoy without any suit, let or hindrance.’ But what is he to hold and enjoy? ‘The premises’. What are the premises? The things previously demised and granted. The covenant does . .
Cited – Broder v Saillard 1875
. .
Cited – Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd CA 20-Mar-1903
The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with . .
Cited – Hudson v Cripps 1896
. .

Cited by:
Applied – Long v Southwark London Borough Council CA 27-Mar-2001
The Council outsourced the collection of refuse from the block of council flats where the tenant applicant lived. He asserted that the Council were in breach of their covenants as landlords in failing to ensure that the refuse was collected . .
Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Cited – Goldmile Properties Limited v Speiro Lechouritis CA 29-Jan-2003
The tenant claimed damages form his landlord for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The landlord was obliged to repair the building, and in his doing so the tenant suffered losses through interruptions. The question was whether the Landlord . .
Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Cited – Woods and Another v Riley and Another CA 4-Jul-2005
Neighbours claimed under a covenant requiring the defendants not to use their land in such a way as to cause a nuisance. The neighbours had extended their shop so as to include a post office.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Claims in nuisance . .
Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Cited – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
Cited – Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd CA 11-Aug-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of its claim in nuisance. The parties occupied adjoining units on an industrial estate. The defendant’s business generated odour which, the wall between them being permeable, passed into the claimant’s office . .
Cited – Iran v Berend QBD 1-Feb-2007
The Republic of Iran sought the return of a fragment of ancient Achaemenid relief in the possession of the defendant, saying that it was part of an ancient monument. The defendant said that she had bought it properly at an auction in Paris. The . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Cited – Rees and Another v Windsor-Clive and Others CA 1-Jul-2020
Reservation Derogation construed normally
Construction of tenancy agreement – correct approach to reservations made in favour of the landlord. The landlord required access to the tenanted farm to allow survey work anticipating development of his adjoining land. The tenant now appealed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.135128

Ciftci v London Borough of Haringey: CA 26 Nov 2021

The issue on this appeal is whether the London Borough of Haringey were entitled to conclude that Ms Ciftci was intentionally homeless. That, in turn, depends on whether Haringey were entitled to conclude that her deliberate decision to give up secure accommodation was not to be disregarded on the ground that she was unaware of a relevant fact; and had acted in good faith. HHJ Hellman decided that they were.

Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Moylan And Lord Justice Nugee
[2021] EWA Civ 1772
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.670077

Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 13 Jun 2014

The claimant challenged the defendant’s decision that she was intentionally homeless.

Jackson, Fulford, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 792
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526582