Category: Housing

Regina v Northavon District Council ex parte Smith: HL 18 Jul 1994

Local Authority is under no obligation to provide permanent housing for a family with children save as provided under the Act. The Children Act not to be used as a way around homelessness decisions and rules. A Social Services request to house children did not revive any claim made on behalf of the family as a whole. A child without accommodation is a child in need.

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

Gazette 19-Oct-1994, Independent 21-Jul-1994, Times 18-Jul-1994

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part III, Children Act 1989 22 27

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Northavon District Council, ex parte Smith CA 4-Aug-1993
A local Authority has a duty to act upon a housing request for children even though the family were intentionally homeless. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Children

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87471

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 become nomadic. Enough common land survived enclosure to make this way of life still sustainable, but by the 1960 Act, local authorities were given power to close the commons to travellers. This they did with great energy, but made no use of the concomitant power given to them by s24 to open caravan sites to compensate for the closure of the commons. By the 1968 Act, Parliament legislated to make the s24 power a duty, resting in rural areas upon county councils rather than district councils (although the latter continued to possess the power to open sites). For the next quarter of a century there followed a history of non-compliance with the duties imposed by the Act of 1968, marked by a series of decisions of this court holding local authorities to be in breach of their statutory duty, to apparently little practical effect. The default powers vested in central government, to which the court was required to defer, were rarely if ever used. Sedley J: ‘Those considerations in the material paragraphs (of the Circular [on Gypsy Site Policy]) which are not statutory are considerations of common humanity, none of which can be properly ignored when dealing with one of the most fundamental human needs, the need for shelter with at least a modicum of security.’

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Independent 03-Oct-1995, (1995) 8 Admin LR 529, [1997] JPL 65

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 77 78 79, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 23, Caravan Sites Act 1968

Cited by:

Cited – Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
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 – Regina v Kerrier District Council, ex parte Uzell Blythe and Sons 1996
The court referred to the decision of Sedley J in Atkinson adding: ‘As consideration of common humanity, they had to be equally applicable to decisions in relation to enforcement actions.’ . .
Cited – JD Wetherspoon Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council Admn 11-Apr-2006
The company sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to apply its cumulative impact policy to their application for extended licensing hours.
Held: The company’s application amounted to a material variation of the license, and . .
Cited – Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb and Others QBD 27-Jun-2011
The Council applied for the committal of the defendant for an alleged breach of a without notice injunction. Notice of the injunction had been placed at the site, requiring nobody to move caravans onto the land.
Held: The application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government, Planning

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87186

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council Ex Parte Kihara; Regina v Similar: QBD 1 May 1996

The words ‘other special reason’ for housing need within the section are to be to be read narrowly. The section was to be read as a whole and was not indended to cover impecuniosity through the denial of benefits.

Citations:

Times 01-May-1996

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 59(1)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87060

Regina v Harrow London Borough Council Ex Parte Carter: QBD 25 Nov 1992

The applicant had sold her home and moved to Harrow with her four children, living with her sister. She became unintentionally homess and had priority need, applying to Harrow for accomodation. Harrow said that under their policy she retained her local connection with Camden, and refused assistance beyond referring her to Camden.
Held: The applicant had a possible case for special assistance under section 61 so as to establish a local connection with Harrow. The discretion given to local authorities under section 67(1) could not be disclaimed under a strict policy. They had to consider each individual case, and the policy had to allow exceptions.
Mr Roger Henderson QC said ‘I have seen no evidence of a decision focusing upon the respondents’ discretion under section 67 of the Act whether or not in all the circumstances of Mrs Carter’s case to refer her to Brent. Instead, although for reasons to which I will come I am sure that the respondents’ senior officers in the housing department and its members were well aware that such a reference was discretionary and not mandatory, there is persuasive evidence that the reference to Brent was made as an automatic and unreviewed consequence of the decision that Mrs. Carter had no local connection and had not established special circumstances. I refer to this because although the reference to Brent led to nothing and it not the subject of judicial review, yet it is a significant feature in the history of this case which points to a similar unlawful approach in the decision-making when the reference to the London Borough of Camden occurred a month later.’

Judges:

Mr Roger Henderson QC

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1992, (1992) 26 HLR 32

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 61 67(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v East Devon District Council ex parte Robb Admn 4-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Ealing ex parte Anthony Fox Admn 9-Feb-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86817

Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Patterson: QBD 27 May 1993

A council should satisfy itself by making more enquiries about suggestions of domestic violence before transferring a claimant to another authority. The granting of leave to move for a judicial review does not preclude the respondent from objecting that the application has been made out of time. (Obiter)

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1993, Times 27-May-1993, (1993) 26 HLR 159

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 67(4)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A HL 11-Mar-1999
A police doctor’s statement in a contemporary medical report that her findings were consistent with the claimant’s allegation had not been included in the evidence before the CICB when it rejected her claim for compensation.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86768

Regina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua: QBD 1 Jul 1993

A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless.

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1993

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Part III

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua CA 31-Mar-1994
Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. . .
At first instance – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
At First Instance – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86196

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne: QBD 8 Jun 2000

A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would impinge on the management of the park where the flat was situated. The refusal was correct, since it could not have been intended that the inspector should limit himself to consideration only of the green belt issues.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 118, Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 17-Apr-2001
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority . .
At first instance – Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne HL 14-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Planning, Local Government

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85506

Regina v Newham London Borough Council, Ex Parte Trendgrove Properties Ltd: QBD 3 Jun 1999

A housing grant had been agreed, but when the works were not completed in time. The grant was withdrawn even though partly done. A judicial review of the decision failed because the Act had clearly imposed a requirement that works be completed within a twelve months period. No need to show bad faith.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 189(1)

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85425

Regina v Newham London Borough Counci, ex parte Begum and Another: QBD 11 Oct 1999

A local authority’s duty to house a homeless family could be satisfied by provision of housing outside the Borough. A local authority which had not considered this could not therefore be said to have done all in its power for such a family. The duty was to find housing immediately, even though the result may be temporary and not of the quality it might want to offer on a permanent basis.

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85423

Regina v Newham London Borough Council, Ex Parte Khan and Another: QBD 9 May 2000

A person became threatened with homelessness once a court had ordered possession of a property. A local authority investigation the homelessness need must begin to act at that point rather than to await the point at which the possession order was executed, by which time the applicant had become homeless. Once the person was so threatened the authority must commence the process.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 184

Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85424

Regina v Bristol City Council, Ex Parte Jacobs: QBD 16 Nov 1999

The payment of water rates was not part of the obligation of a local authority paying housing benefit paid by the tenant to the water supplier. Water rates were not paid by her ‘in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling’ At common law a person in occupation of land under such terms would themselves be expected to contribute financially. The words must be read restrictively, and benefit was not payable.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 10 (1) (d)

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85148

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

An abatement notice was addressed by the respondent city council to freehold owners of tenanted premises, in respect of a noise source which it was out of their power to stop. This was noise from perfectly normal everyday living, which reached one flat from the flat above due to the absence (under ceiling, on floor or in the ceiling/underfloor void) of proper insulation. The only way in which the housing association could therefore abate the nuisance was by installing proper sound insulation. Nothing effective was said about how the noise could be abated, because the experts differed.
Held: A nuisance or noise abatement notice had to be specific enough to allow the person served to gain knowledge of what work was required of him to be carried out to secure compliance.

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 07-Nov-1994, [1995] Env LR 176, [1995] 27 HLR 189

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Cited by:

Cited – Surrey Free Inns Plc v Gosport Borough Council Admn 28-Jan-1998
The local authority issued a noise nuisance abatement notice. By the time the matter came to the court, the nuisance had been abated.
Held: The background situation justifying the issue of a nuisance abatement notice was to be assessed at the . .
Cited – Budd v Colchester Borough Council CA 30-Jan-1997
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision confirming a noise abatement notice under the Act. He kept dogs, and neighbours had complained of the noise. He complained that the notice neither specified the nuisance complained of, nor . .
Cited – Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Field; Thackray; Marsh and Wilson Admn 31-Oct-1997
An abatement notice requiring works to be carried out must state clearly what works are required or considered necessary. There was an imminent danger of the collapse onto some cottages of a rockface and wall where the notice was addressed to the . .
Cited – AMEC Building Limited and Squibb and Davies Limited v London Borough of Camden Admn 19-Jul-1996
. .
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.

Environment, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84259

Forebury Estates Ltd v Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Panel and Others: QBD 11 Jul 2000

Where a rent assessment committee was considering the setting of a rent, it was appropriate to take account of the lists of rents of local local authorities. The connection is however to be made only with care. A high availability or scarcity of a housing list might affect the level of rents of privately available properties.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 Part IV

Housing

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80632

Deadman v Southwark London Borough Council: CA 31 Aug 2000

For a local authority to be liable for damage to the property of a person applying as a homeless person, the authority had to be properly fixed with notice of the threat to the property. A general or fanciful risk was insufficient. An applicant having left her home and applying to be re-housed complained of the threat to her property, but was advised to ensure the property was secured and visited. The authority was not liable for loss or damage arising from a burglary.

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-2000, Gazette 19-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 211

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79856

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Paice: CA 3 Apr 1995

A dwelling subtenant of part of premises comprised in a business lease became a secure tenant on the surrender of the mesne tenancy. Section 79 of the 1985 Act had ambulatory effect.
Waite LJ said: ‘The use of the term ‘at any time’ in section 79(1) shows that the section is to have ambulatory effect. Occupiers, that is to say, may be liable to pass in and out of secure tenant status – depending upon whether their landlord for the time being is or is not a local authority; or upon changes in the tenant’s own circumstances taking him in and out of the tenant condition.’

Judges:

Waite LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-May-1995, Times 03-Apr-1995, (1995) 27 HLR 433, [1995] 2 EGLR 9, [1995] 44 EG 139, (1995) LG Rev 909, [1995] EG 54 (CS), [1995] NPC 46

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 79(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd CA 2-Nov-2000
The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78274

Leicester City Council v Aldwinckle: CA 1991

A tenant was evicted while absent from the premises for some months through illness and who, following her breach of the suspended possession order, received no notice whatever either of the council’s application for a warrant, or of the issue of the warrant and the date of its proposed execution.
Held: Leggatt LJ said: ‘In my judgment, even though Miss Aldwinckle was not expecting execution to be levied against her possessions, the use of available process does not of itself constitute abuse nor amount to oppression; and the court would be interfering unjustifiably with the existing policy of Parliament were it to introduce its own requirements as to additional conditions that have to be satisfied before execution may issue.’ and
‘after a warrant for possession has been executed in this class of case it can only be suspended or set aside if either (1) the order on which it is issued is itself set aside; (2) the warrant has been obtained by fraud; or (3) there has been an abuse of process or oppression in its execution.’

Judges:

Leggatt, Neill and Stocker LJJ

Citations:

[1991] 24 HLR 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Beale v MacGregor 1886
The court has an inherent power to prevent the abuse of proceedings and to avoid oppression. . .

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 . .
Distinguished – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Saint CA 21-Aug-1998
The council requested a warrant for possession be issued on the basis of certified arrears of pounds 333 when they were in breach of their statutory duty to assist the tenant in his claim for housing benefit and save for pounds 28, were relying on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187046

Regina v Slough Borough Council Ex Parte Khan and Another: QBD 30 Jan 1995

A Local Authority had to consider all possible local connections before passing an applicant for housing under the Act to another other Local Authority for assistance.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-1995, (1995) 27 HLR 492

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Avdic QBD 1996
The applicant challenged a referral of her application for housing as a homeless person by Hammersmith back to Kirklees from where she had moved. She had a cousin in Hammersmith.
Held: Her application for judical review failed. Tucker J: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88041

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 are such as possibly to mislead a new committee into repeating the errors of the present committee, the judge’s order has not given the landlord all that he wants and to which he is entitled and the Court of Appeal can do something about it… It can exercise … the power of the court below to remit the matter for rehearing and determination … in accordance with the correct opinion of the court.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[1999] QB 92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.180402

Stewart, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council: Admn 24 Jan 2018

Claim for judicial review concerning the decision of a local authority that a child was not a ‘child in need’ for the purposes of section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and the consequential refusal to provide the child and her parents with accommodation.

Judges:

Jeremy Baker J

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 55, [2018] EWHC 61 (Admin)

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Housing

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604753

Clarke, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council: CA 6 Nov 2020

Whether Birmingham City Council failed to take account of legally relevant matters when it confirmed its decision to retrofit sprinklers in its tower blocks following the fire at Grenfell Tower in London.

Judges:

The Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1466

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.655566

Goldsbrough and Another v Ca Property Management Ltd and Others: UTLC 29 Oct 2019

Housing – House In Multiple Occupation
Held: An application for a rent repayment order could be made against a superior landlord (here the freeholder) despite the applicants never having been in the relationship of landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee with that person.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 311 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rakusen v Jepsen UTLC 11-Nov-2020
Rent Repayment Order From Superior Landlord
Housing – Rent Payment – Whether A Rent Repayment Order May Be Made against A Superior Landlord – – application to strike out claim for rent repayment order – ss. 40, 41 Housing and Planning Act 2016 – appeal dismissed
‘the FTT does have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.642819

Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham: Admn 10 Oct 2003

Each applicant had been accepted as homeless by the respondent, but was then offered alternative accomodation under terms which they found unacceptable. They argued that the Regulations applied. The council had disapplied one statutory guidance in order to meet another administrative target.
Held: ‘to depart from national guidance given under statute in order to achieve a national guidelines target, which has been set administratively, is to run the risk of acting unlawfully by failing to follow the guidance.’ As to whether the policy was oppressive, its administrative efficeiency was not relevant. Where European legislation wanted to give broad effect to consumer protection legislation, it did so typically by making explicit exclusions to areas not to be covered. No such limitation was present here, and it was contrary to the stated intention to exclude housing rental provisions from protection. Contracts for the letting of property were covered by the regulations.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Newman

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2326 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, Council Directive 93/13/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Gallaher and others (Judgment) ECJ 22-Jun-1993
Member States may decide size of government health warnings on cigarettes
ECJ Articles 3(3) and 4(4) of Directive 89/622 on the labelling of tobacco products provide respectively that the indications of tar . .
Cited – Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2) ECJ 2-Aug-1993
The UK law limiting awards of damages in sex discrimination cases is unlawful, and fails to implement European directive fully. Financial compensation must be at a level adequate to achieve equality between the workers identified. . .
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) ECJ 29-May-1997
The UK provision in the 1987 Act did not conflict with the EC Directive on liability for defective products; there was an overriding provision as to interpretation.
Europa Approximation of laws – Liability . .
Cited – Oceano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores (Judgment) ECJ 27-Jun-2000
Europa Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the . .
Cited – Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd CA 31-Jul-2001
The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal CA 24-Feb-2004
The council made offers of accommodation which were rejected as inappropriate by the proposed tenants.
Held: The council was given a responsibility to act reasonably. It was for them, not the court to make that assessment subject only to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Consumer

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.186739

Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council: Admn 13 Oct 2003

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2266 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council, Admn 26-May-2004
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.186831

Urban Lettings (London) Ltd v London Borough of Haringey: UTLC 5 Mar 2015

UTLC HOUSING – houses in multiple occupation – landlord and tenant – rent repayment order – person having control – appropriate person to repay rent – ss 61(7), 72(1) and 73(5) Housing Act 2004 – appeal dismissed.
A rent repayment order was made against the immediate landlord of the occupational tenants although the landlord had only ever had a lease for a short term of only three years. The Tribunal confirmed that it was a person having control and was capable of committing the offence under section 72(1), 2004 Act. More than one landlord could be in receipt of rack rent at the same time.

Judges:

Behrens HHJ

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 104 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004 61(7) 72(1) 73(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rakusen v Jepsen UTLC 11-Nov-2020
Rent Repayment Order From Superior Landlord
Housing – Rent Payment – Whether A Rent Repayment Order May Be Made against A Superior Landlord – – application to strike out claim for rent repayment order – ss. 40, 41 Housing and Planning Act 2016 – appeal dismissed
‘the FTT does have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.544733

Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2003

The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a flight back to Guyana for herself and her child. She appealed, saying that it might yet take a longer time for any order for her removal to come through.
Held: The claimant was no longer lawfully present in the UK. There was statutory support for the withdrawal of support provided her human rights were not infringed, but the prohibition on support did not extend to her child, and support could be continued where the claimant had not failed to co-operate with attempts at her removal. The decision with respect to the claimant was lawful, but as regards the decision about the child, the local authority had failed to consider the rights of the child’s father, and had obtained no evidence as to the child’s possible future in Guyana. Their s17 assessment was flawed and set aside.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2003, Gazette 14-Aug-2003

Statutes:

Witholding and Withdrawal of Support (travel Assistance and Temporary Accomodation) regulations 2002 (2002 No 3078) 3(3), Children Act 1989 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.183694

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Reid: UTLC 12 Oct 2017

HOUSING – SELECTIVE LICENSING – Part 3, Housing Act 2004 – landlord convicted of failure to apply for licence but held to be ‘a fit and proper person’ within the Act – whether convictions relevant to decision on length of licence granted – appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 396 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597400

Ward and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon and Others: CA 16 Apr 2019

Challenge to housing policy as discriminatory against Irish travellers or Kurdish refugees.

Judges:

Underhill VP, Lewison, King LJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 692, [2019] WLR(D) 244, [2019] PTSR 1738

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 166A, Children Act 2004 11(2), Equality Act 2010 19 29 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gullu, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon Admn 26-Jul-2018
. .

Cited by:

Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.636158

Gullu, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon: Admn 26 Jul 2018

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1937 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Localism Act 2011

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ward and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Hillingdon and Others CA 16-Apr-2019
Challenge to housing policy as discriminatory against Irish travellers or Kurdish refugees. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.620644

Dacorum Borough Council v Bucknall (Aka Acheampong): QBD 10 Aug 2017

Appeals from an order in the County Court in favour of the Claimant Council for possession of Property. The issue in the appeal is whether at the time of the notice to quit, she was occupying the Property ‘as a dwelling’ within the meaning of s. 5(1A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The Judge decided that Ms Bucknall did not occupy the Property as a dwelling. The defendant had been provided with interim housing pending determination of application for emergency housing.
Held: Appeal allowed.

Judges:

PopplewellJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2094 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592022

AB v The London Borough of Newham (Housing – Rent Repayment Orders): UTLC 27 Jul 2017

UTLC HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDERS – no conviction – whether reasonable to order repayment of all housing benefit received (less utilities and council tax) – relevant considerations – appellant’s poor mental health – procedural irregularity – s.73-74, Housing Act 2004 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 299 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591394

Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v Sweden: ECHR 8 Jun 2011

The Strasbourg court considered a claim by applicants who had been evicted by a court order at the suit of their landlords, who had determined their tenancy for installing a satellite dish in breach of covenant.
Held: This infringed the applicant’s article 10 rights,

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 1277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v Sweden ECHR 16-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Pla and Puncernau v Andorra ECHR 13-Jul-2004
A will made by a widow in 1939, left certain property to her son Francesc-Xavier, as tenant for life, with a stipulation that he was to leave this inheritance to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage, failing which the estate was to . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591291

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 had been rehoused outside the Borough and that the Coucil had failed to take proper account of her and of her children’s needs.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The decision that their duty to secure that accommodation was made available to her had come to an end must be quashed: ‘the authority cannot show that their offer of the property in Bletchley was sufficient to discharge their legal obligations towards the appellant under the 1996 Act. Moreover, their notification to the appellant that their duty towards her had come to an end was purportedly given in circumstances where she did not know, and had no means of knowing, what, if any, consideration had been given to providing accommodation in or nearer to the borough, apart from the general standard paragraph in the letter offering her the Bletchley accommodation the previous day.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 22, [2015] WLR(D) 165, [2015] PTSR 549, [2015] 2 WLR 813, [2015] 2 All ER 942, (2015) 18 CCL Rep 201, [2015] BLGR 215, [2015] HLR 22, UKSC 2014/0275

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Sacupima and Others, Ex Parte Newham London Borough Council QBD 26-Nov-1999
A local authority decide to provide temporary accommodation for homeless applicants outside its area in assorted seaside towns, pending a final decision on their cases. This general policy was unlawful, since the authority had failed to consider . .
Cited – Yumsak v London Borough of Enfield Admn 2002
The court will not readily interfere with the approach of a housing authority to the question of suitability, although in an appropriate case it plainly will. . .
Cited – Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
Cited – Castle and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 8-Sep-2011
The claimants, all under 17 years old, took a peaceful part in a substantial but disorderly demonstration in London. The police decided to contain the section of crowd which included the claimants. The claimants said that the containment of children . .
Cited – Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow CA 21-Nov-2013
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person.
Held: Moses LJ said: ‘The statutory questions are clear; was the action or omission in question deliberate? The answer to that question cannot differ [according to] whether the local authority . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 10-Apr-2013
The court was asked as to important issues as the approach of both planning decision-makers and the court to proportionality in circumstances in which a planning decision engages the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the European . .
Cited – Collins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 9-Oct-2013
The claimant, seeking permission to use land as a gypsy and travellers’ camp site, appealed against rejection of his request for the quashing of the inspector’s report approving an enforcement notice. . .
Cited – Hines v London Borough of Lambeth CA 20-May-2014
The child applicant sought housing assistance.
Held: The child’s welfare had obviously to be taken into account, but it could not be the paramount consideration as this would be inconsistent with the statutory language. . .
Cited – Royal Mail Group Plc v The Consumer Council for Postal Services CA 7-Mar-2007
The Royal Mail appealed a grant of judicial review of the decision of the Post regulator not to penalise the company for its failure to meet its service conditions as regards enforcement of credit terms for bulk mail customers.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal CA 24-Feb-2004
The council made offers of accommodation which were rejected as inappropriate by the proposed tenants.
Held: The council was given a responsibility to act reasonably. It was for them, not the court to make that assessment subject only to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Cited – Samuels v Birmingham City Council SC 12-Jun-2019
The appellant had been provided with emergency accommodation after losing her assured shorthold tenancy, but the court was now asked ‘whether the council adopted the correct approach in determining that the accommodation was ‘affordable’ for those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Local Government

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.545697

Rogerson v Wigan Metropolican Borough Council: QBD 14 Jul 2004

The claimant sought damages under the 1977 Act. The defendant said it had behaved lawfully. He had been housed in a hostel pending a decision on the application for permanent housing as a homeless person, which the defendant said excluded him from protection under the 1977 Act.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed.
Auld LJ said: ‘the solution to this issue rests upon the proper meaning to be given to the concept of ‘a separate and self-contained set of premises’. I do not think that it can simply mean physically separate and self-contained, for two reasons. First, if residential accommodation is provided in self contained premises then they must perforce be physically separated from the rest of the block of accommodation. So the concept of ‘separate’ must be directed to some other aspect. Second, the notion of separate accommodation more naturally, in my view, is referring to accommodation which is separate for each person (with or without a partner). It is not appropriate to describe someone as being in separate accommodation if they are being compelled to share some of the facilities with someone they have not chosen. The separate bedroom does not amount to separate residential accommodation. In this case nobody was in fact required to share the accommodation whilst the appellant was there, but Mr Stark, in my opinion rightly, accepted that this was irrelevant. The potential to require sharing was no different to actual sharing.’

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2005] 2 All ER 1000, [2004] EWHC 1677 (QB), [2005] HLR 10, [2004] 2 PandCR DG21, [2005] BLGR 549

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977, Housing Act 1985 622, Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
Cited – Brennan v London Borough of Lambeth CA 3-Jun-1997
The appellant sought to resist his eviction from temporary hostel accomodation provided to him by the local authority, saying that the provisions of the 1977 Act protected him.
Held: The agreement was a licence excluded from protection by the . .

Cited by:

Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.269952

Samuels v Birmingham City Council: SC 12 Jun 2019

The appellant had been provided with emergency accommodation after losing her assured shorthold tenancy, but the court was now asked ‘whether the council adopted the correct approach in determining that the accommodation was ‘affordable’ for those purposes.’
Held: Her appeal was granted. The 1996 Order requires the authority to take into account all sources of income, including all social security benefits. There is nothing in it to require or justify the exclusion of non-housing benefits of any kind. It also requires consideration of the applicant’s ‘reasonable living expenses’, which necessitates an objective assessment, not simply the subjective view of the case officer. It was hard to see on what basis the finding of intentional homelessness could be properly upheld.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 28, [2019] 4 All ER 773, [2019] PTSR 1229, [2019] HLR 32, [2019] WLR(D) 355, UKSC 2017/0172

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Jan 31 am Video, SC 2019 Jan 31 pm Video

Statutes:

Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 2, Housing Act 1996 182(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Samuels v Birmingham City Council CA 27-Oct-2015
. .
Cited – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Cited – Burnip v Birmingham City Council and Another CA 15-May-2012
Disability is a prohibited ground for discrimination
Henderson J said: ‘ . . it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the benefits which Mr Burnip was entitled to claim for his subsistence, and those which he was entitled to claim in . .
Cited – Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Jul-2015
The claimant a boy of three in receipt of disability living allowance (‘DLA’) challenged (through his parents) the withdrawal of that benefit whilst he was in hospital for a period of more than 12 weeks. He had since died.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Aweys and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council Admn 26-Jan-2007
The applicant complained that the respondent’s housing allocation policies were unlawful, giving priority to those who were homeless or in temporary accommodation over those it had been found to be in overcrowded conditions.
Held: The policy . .
Cited – PO and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Council of The London Borough of Newham Admn 28-Jul-2014
Claim for judicial review brought by three children, who are Nigerian nationals, about the level of financial assistance that the Defendant, the Council of the London Borough of Newham, provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to meet the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.638234

Aweys and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council: Admn 26 Jan 2007

The applicant complained that the respondent’s housing allocation policies were unlawful, giving priority to those who were homeless or in temporary accommodation over those it had been found to be in overcrowded conditions.
Held: The policy was unlawful. Chronic overcrowding was equivalent to homelessness, and having made once the finding, it became under an immediate obligation to provided temporary accomodation. It was a breach of the authority’s duty for it to require families to remain in unsuitable accommodation even for a short time.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2007, [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin), [2007] 1 FLR 2066, [2007] HLR 27, [2007] Fam Law 493

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v Aweys and others CA 7-Feb-2008
If accommodation is not reasonable for a person to occupy, it is not suitable for him. Arden LJ said: ‘homelessness is a large social problem directly and substantially affecting the lives of many people in the UK, and those who depend on them, . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Cited – Samuels v Birmingham City Council SC 12-Jun-2019
The appellant had been provided with emergency accommodation after losing her assured shorthold tenancy, but the court was now asked ‘whether the council adopted the correct approach in determining that the accommodation was ‘affordable’ for those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.248246

Trindade v London Borough of Hackney: CA 6 Jul 2017

Appeal against a decision dismissing an appeal brought by the appellant under section 204 of the 1996 Act against an assessment made by the Council upon review under section 202 of the 1996 Act. The Council’s assessment in relation to establishing the extent of the duties it owed the appellant with respect to provision of social housing, was that the appellant was intentionally homeless, as defined in section 191 of the 1996 Act.

Judges:

Sales, Irwin, Moyland LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588992

Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney and Another: CA 27 Jun 2019

A charitable institution was set up to provide and did provide housing assistance to members of the Orthodox Jewish Community. The court was now asked whether this discrimination was lawful.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1099, [2019] PTSR 2271, [2019] PTSR 2272

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Z and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another Admn 4-Feb-2019
The claim challenges the arrangements made by AIHA for the allocation of social housing properties owned or controlled by AIHA, which in present circumstances in effect preclude any persons who are not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from . .

Cited by:

Appeal from (CA) – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another SC 16-Oct-2020
Housing Orthodox Jewish Only not Discriminatory
Hackney had statutory housing functions as to allocating social housing. It also nominated applicants to properties owned by housing associations, including AIHA, which only accepted for such nominations households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Charity, Discrimination

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.638835

Z and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another: Admn 4 Feb 2019

The claim challenges the arrangements made by AIHA for the allocation of social housing properties owned or controlled by AIHA, which in present circumstances in effect preclude any persons who are not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from becoming tenants of such properties.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lindblom, Sir Kenneth Parker

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 139 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 60, [2019] WLR(D) 61, [2019] PTSR 985

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hackney and Another CA 27-Jun-2019
A charitable institution was set up to provide and did provide housing assistance to members of the Orthodox Jewish Community. The court was now asked whether this discrimination was lawful. . .
At First Instance (Admn) – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another SC 16-Oct-2020
Housing Orthodox Jewish Only not Discriminatory
Hackney had statutory housing functions as to allocating social housing. It also nominated applicants to properties owned by housing associations, including AIHA, which only accepted for such nominations households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.633178