Click the case name for better results:

Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte O’Connor: QBD 1998

Tucker J said of section 204(2A) ‘ . . the time limit fixed by Parliament under the Housing Act 1996 was draconian, as some might think. It was certainly short and it gave no discretion to the judge either of this court or the county court to extend it.’ Judges: Tucker J Citations: (1998) 31 … Continue reading Regina v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte O’Connor: QBD 1998

Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: CA 30 Jan 2020

‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness provisions of that Act, in circumstances where the reason put forward for the … Continue reading Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: CA 30 Jan 2020

London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed: QBD 26 Mar 2019

The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested a review of that decision. The decision on the review / upheld the … Continue reading London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed: QBD 26 Mar 2019

Emambee v London Borough of Islington: QBD 25 Oct 2019

Judges: Mr Justice Stewart Citations: [2019] EWHC 2835 (QB) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020 ‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 … Continue reading Emambee v London Borough of Islington: QBD 25 Oct 2019

London Borough of Lambeth v A: CA 23 Jul 2002

The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot secure that the necessary head start is given’. A policy was irrational if it … Continue reading London Borough of Lambeth v A: CA 23 Jul 2002

Goodger v London Borough of Ealing: CA 23 Apr 2002

The claimant had sought housing as a homeless person. The authority rejected his claim saying that he was intentionally homeless, having lost his previous accomodation having grown cannabis there breaching his tenancy. The authority appealed an order which said it had breached natural justice by not providing its file for inspection until a few days … Continue reading Goodger v London Borough of Ealing: CA 23 Apr 2002

Sprunt Ltd v London Borough of Camden: TCC 6 Dec 2011

The court heard applications in adjudication enforcement proceedings between consultants and their employer, issues being raised about the extent to which the construction contract between the parties was in writing for the purposes of Section 107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (‘HGCRA’) and in relation to the extent and scope of … Continue reading Sprunt Ltd v London Borough of Camden: TCC 6 Dec 2011

Hurley and Moore, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills: Admn 17 Feb 2012

The applicants, intending university students, challenged the decision to raise to andpound;9,000 per annum, the fees which might be charged by qualifying universities.Elias LJ said: ‘Contrary to a submission advanced by Ms Mountfield, I do not accept that this means that it is for the court to determine whether appropriate weight has been given to … Continue reading Hurley and Moore, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills: Admn 17 Feb 2012

Ashfield District Council v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 30 Nov 2001

The council were liable to pay grants for building works. They wished to set the VAT element as an input tax. The Commissioners refused. Did the builders supply their services to the house owners, or to the council who paid the bill. The Act allowed the council to pay the sum direct to the builder. … Continue reading Ashfield District Council v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 30 Nov 2001

Shaw and Another v MFP Foundations and Piling Ltd: ChD 6 Jan 2010

The defendants appealed against a refusal to set aside statutory demands adjudicated due under the 1996 Act. They said that the judge had accepted that he was bound by MFO and that it was on all fours, but he had not followed it. Held: The judge’s discretion had been wrongly exercised, and the court had … Continue reading Shaw and Another v MFP Foundations and Piling Ltd: ChD 6 Jan 2010

Parke v The Fenton Gretton Partnership: ChD 2 Aug 2000

The defendant creditor had obtained an adjudicator’s decision against the debtor on its final account claim, but the debtor had little notice of the adjudication. At the application to set aside the statutory demand, Mr Parke had already commenced proceedings in the TCC arguing that the true final account showed a balance payable in his … Continue reading Parke v The Fenton Gretton Partnership: ChD 2 Aug 2000

Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2009

The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their intervention, would have led to Westrip losing all or almost all of its remaining assets. They say … Continue reading Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2009

Bankers Trust Company v Namdar and Namdar: CA 14 Feb 1997

The bank sought repayment of its loan and possession of the defendants’ property. The second defendant said that the charge had only her forged signature. Held: Non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act does not make a bargain illegal, and therefore does not remove the possibility of an argument based upon estoppel. Judges: Peter … Continue reading Bankers Trust Company v Namdar and Namdar: CA 14 Feb 1997

Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre: EAT 22 Sep 2003

The employee claimed that the behaviour which gave rise to her dismissal was a protected disclosure, and that her motive was irrelevant. Held: The fact that what was disclosed was true was not conclusive to protect the disclosure. The court could look to motive, and a bad motive might defeat the protection even if the … Continue reading Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre: EAT 22 Sep 2003

Abed v City of Westminster: CA 9 Nov 2011

The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim that the property offered to him under the 1996 Act was properly and reasonably rejected by him. Judges: Ward, Lloyd., Kitchin LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1406 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.449030

69 Marina, St Leonards-On-Sea, Freeholders of v Oram and Another: CA 8 Nov 2011

The parties disputed the liability on lessees to contribute to a service charge for maintenance of common parts of the building. The six tenants covenanted to pay a proper proportion of the landlord’s costs of meeting his repair obligations. The landlord executed repair after a water leak. Two tenants argued that the cost was too … Continue reading 69 Marina, St Leonards-On-Sea, Freeholders of v Oram and Another: CA 8 Nov 2011

Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another: CA 22 May 1978

Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied. Held: The appeal failed. The court tried to reconcile invocations of estoppel with … Continue reading Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another: CA 22 May 1978

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 offer. Having rejected it as unsuitable, she was given notice to quit the temporary accomodation. She then … Continue reading Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council: HL 6 Jul 1995

Akhtar v Birmingham City Council: CA 12 Apr 2011

Appeal from an order in the County Court dismissing the appeal of the Appellant from a review decision of Birmingham City Council, pursuant to sections 202 and 203 of the Act, that the Respondent had discharged its duty to secure accommodation for the Appellant under section 193(2) of the Act. The reason given in the … Continue reading Akhtar v Birmingham City Council: CA 12 Apr 2011

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Saleh: CA 19 Nov 2019

The Court was asked whether, in conducting a review of a homelessness decision under s.202 HA 1996, the review officer must reconsider the decision in the light of all relevant circumstances at the date of the review or is limited to a reconsideration of the facts as they stood at the date of the original … Continue reading London Borough of Waltham Forest v Saleh: CA 19 Nov 2019

Babakandi v Westminster City Council: Admn 6 Jul 2011

The claimant who the defendant accepted lived in severely overcrowded conditions with his family, said that the defendant’s allocation policy was unlawful in debarring tenants such as himself who were in rent arrears from being allocated a property, and/or that the policy was being unlawfully implemented. Judges: Nicol J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1756 (Admin) Links: … Continue reading Babakandi v Westminster City Council: Admn 6 Jul 2011

Westminster Building Company Ltd v Beckingham: TCC 20 Feb 2004

Court Service Enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision; adjudication not subject to Housing Grants, Regeneration and Construction Act 1996; jurisdiction where terms of contract in dispute; applicability of Shepherd v Mecright; applicability of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Held: The contract was governed by an adjudication clause, the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine whether … Continue reading Westminster Building Company Ltd v Beckingham: TCC 20 Feb 2004

Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd: CA 12 Apr 2002

The claimants were main contractors on a construction project. The respondents were sub-contractors. After difficulties, the sub-contractor was ejected from the site. The issue was as to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Was the project, to create a sewage station, a ‘construction operation’ within the Act? Held: The sum was due under the contract irrespective … Continue reading Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd: CA 12 Apr 2002

AS v London Borough of Camden: CA 20 Apr 2011

The claimant appealed against rejection of her objection to the defendant’s decision that it had discharged its housing duties toward her. Held: The appeal succeeded. Etherton LJ said: ‘The accommodation offered by Camden to the applicant comprised two self-contained flats, on the same floor of the building, but a short distance apart, one of which … Continue reading AS v London Borough of Camden: CA 20 Apr 2011

Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513): CA 9 Dec 2005

The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee. Held: The farmers’ appeal as to the farm transaction failed: ‘beyond argument that DEFRA was … Continue reading Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513): CA 9 Dec 2005

Makisi v Birmingham City Council: CA 31 Mar 2011

The court considered questions arising under the review procedure applicable under homelessness provisions. Judges: Maurice Kay LJ VP, Rimer, Etherton LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 355 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 202, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431750

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 order requested. Powell had been given emergency accomodation as a … Continue reading London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc: SC 23 Feb 2011

M, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 5 Jul 2006

The court examined ‘a short but important point on the inter-relationship between the provisions of Part III of the Children Act 1989, headed ‘Local Authority Support for Children and Families’, and the homelessness provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, in particular sections 188 and 189, headed ‘Interim duty to accommodate”. Judges: Walll … Continue reading M, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 5 Jul 2006

Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 15 Dec 2009

‘The sole but important issue on this appeal is the meaning of ‘violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’). The question is whether, for the purposes of that provision, ‘violence’ requires some sort of physical contact or whether, in the context of ‘domestic violence’, it should be understood more widely as … Continue reading Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 15 Dec 2009

Motacus Constructions Ltd v Paolo Castelli Spa: TCC 22 Feb 2021

Construction Contract – Adjudication – Enforcement – Summary Judgment – Whether jurisdiction of English court ousted by foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause – Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, ss. 104, 108, 114 – 2005 Hague Convention, arts.6 (c), 7 Judges: His Honour Judge Hodge QC Citations: [2021] EWHC 356 (TCC), 196 Con LR 159, … Continue reading Motacus Constructions Ltd v Paolo Castelli Spa: TCC 22 Feb 2021

Norris v Milton Keynes Council: CA 27 Jan 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal against an order dismissing an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the decision of a review officer to the effect that accommodation at Milton Keynes that had been offered to her under the Council’s Housing Act duties was suitable. Judges: Rimer LJ Citations: [2010] EWCA … Continue reading Norris v Milton Keynes Council: CA 27 Jan 2010

Garland v Morris and Another: ChD 11 Jan 2007

The claimant sought additional provision from her father’s estate. She said that the will failed to make reasonable provsion for her, bearing in mind her extreme financial needs. She was a single mother of three. Held: The claim failed. Michael Furness QC J said: ‘the most important factors are first the financial position of the … Continue reading Garland v Morris and Another: ChD 11 Jan 2007

Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc: HL 24 Jun 1999

Tour guides were engaged to act ‘on a casual as required basis’. The guides later claimed to be employees and therefore entitled by statute to a written statement of their terms of employment. Their case was that an exchange of correspondence between the parties in March 1989 constituted a contract, which was to be classified … Continue reading Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc: HL 24 Jun 1999

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 drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

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 . . Convention . . requires a court, which is being asked to … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 9 Feb 2011

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay: HL 19 Feb 1986

Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without investigation. Held: A claim to refugee status was not an exception to the ban on appeals … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay: HL 19 Feb 1986

In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994

The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did not receive the staff or guidance to allow him to do the work … Continue reading Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994

Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others: CA 20 Oct 2009

The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the controls. There was no evidence of this having been done for payment. … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others: CA 20 Oct 2009

Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

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

Swindon Borough Council v Redpath: CA 11 Sep 2009

The defendant appealed against the issuing of an anti-social behaviour order for ‘housing-related conduct’ where the conduct alleged had no connection with council tenants or property. Held: The appeal failed. ‘Housing-related’ meant ‘directly or indirectly relating to or affecting the housing management functions of a relevant landlord’. The defendant was a former council tenant, his … Continue reading Swindon Borough Council v Redpath: CA 11 Sep 2009

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 difficulties which afflicted her following that incarceration. She now appealed from rejection of that claim by … Continue reading Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: SC 10 May 2017

Fazia Ali v The United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Oct 2015

The Court considered the duties imposed on housing authorities under Part VII of the 1996 Act. Held: Article 6.1 did apply, but in any event the procedure applied under the Act conformed to its requirements. Judges: Guido Raimondi, P Citations: 40378/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)), [2015] ECHR 924, [2015] HLR … Continue reading Fazia Ali v The United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Oct 2015

Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods were taken lawfully. Held: The segregation was not authorised by the applicable legislation: ‘rule 45 . . (1) enables the governor … Continue reading Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 8 Jul 2015

The claimant sought housing under the homelessness provisions. She had refused a final offer accommodation n the grounds that it brought back memories of her prison cell in Iran, and which would exacerbate the post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety attacks and other conditions from which she suffered. The Council’s rejection of these grounds were upheld by … Continue reading Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 8 Jul 2015

El-Dinnaoui v Westminster City Council: CA 20 Mar 2013

The appellant and his family sought rehousing. The appellant’s wife had a medically-confirmed history of anxiety due to fear of heights. They were offered a flat on the 16th floor. She became distressed on leaving after the inspection and collapsed at the lift, and an ambulance had to be called. Held: The council’s decision that … Continue reading El-Dinnaoui v Westminster City Council: CA 20 Mar 2013

Slater v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 12 Apr 2006

The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it. Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review had two stages. Was the accommodation offered suitable, and, secondly, was the applicant’s rejection of the offer … Continue reading Slater v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 12 Apr 2006

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 county court judge to challenge the conclusions as to fact found by the local authority. … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Pinnock: CA 31 Jul 2009

Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd: TCC 24 Jul 2009

The court was asked as to the date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication brought under Part II of the 1996 Act later begins proceedings to seek a final determination of the matters decided by the adjudicator with a view to recovering monies paid to the winning … Continue reading Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd: TCC 24 Jul 2009

Bitto And Others v Slovakia: ECHR 28 Jan 2014

ECHR Article 46-2 – Execution of judgment – Measures of a general character – Respondent State required to introduce compensatory remedy to provide effective relief for breach of property rights of rent-controlled flat owners Facts – The applicants were 21 owners or co-owners of residential buildings in Bratislava and Trnava to which a rent-control scheme … Continue reading Bitto And Others v Slovakia: ECHR 28 Jan 2014

Regina v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Guinness Plc: CA 1989

The court asked about the standard of decision making at which a court could intervene: ‘Irrationality, at least in the sense of failing to take account of relevant factors or taking account of irrelevant factors, is a difficult concept in the context of a body which is itself charged with the duty of making a … Continue reading Regina v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Guinness Plc: CA 1989

Shaw and Another v Massey Foundation and Pilings Ltd: TCC 12 Mar 2009

The appellants had argued that they were not subject to the construction arbitration system because they were residential occupiers. They now said that as consumers vis a vis the construction contract. Judges: Coulson J Citations: [2009] EWHC 493 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: The Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996 106 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Shaw and Another v Massey Foundation and Pilings Ltd: TCC 12 Mar 2009

Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd: ChD 14 Mar 2008

The claimant contracted to buy two apartments from the defendant. The contract purported to exclude section 49. Judges: Floyd J Citations: [2008] EWHC 456 (Ch), Times 04-Apr-2008, [2008] 12 EG 96, [2009] 1 WLR 1089, [2008] 3 All ER 762, [2008] 19 EG 206, [2008] 2 EGLR 65 Links: Bailii Statutes: Law of Property Act … Continue reading Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd: ChD 14 Mar 2008

Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004

Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately explained. The court could look to parliamentary reports to identify the mischief sought to be rectified, … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004

William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd: TCC 25 Jun 2009

The court considered the operation of a ‘pay when paid’ clause. Judges: Coulson J Citations: [2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC), [2009] BLR 447, 125 Con LR 123, [2009] CILL 2753, [2010] BCC 332 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996 113(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Construction, Contract Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.347462

Muse v London Borough of Brent: CA 19 Dec 2008

The court was asked whether the section 193 duty to provide housing was lost after the applicant had refused alternative temporary accommodation. The applicant had been granted temporary accommodation, but her family grew and it became too small. She was offered an alternative but preferred to stay where she was. Held: The Authority’s appeal succeeded. … Continue reading Muse v London Borough of Brent: CA 19 Dec 2008

Barry v London Borough of Southwark: CA 19 Dec 2008

The claimant a citizen of the Netherlands, appealed against the refusal to grant him housing assistance. He had been unemployed save for taking casual work during the Wimbledon championships, but the Authority had denied that he was a worker. He had also suffered an injury preventing him working. Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘worker’ … Continue reading Barry v London Borough of Southwark: CA 19 Dec 2008

MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another: SC 22 Feb 2017

Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse. Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue of discrimination arise under article 14. However, the appendix with instructions for entry clearance officers considering the … Continue reading MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another: SC 22 Feb 2017

Rouse Tout A Tout, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey: Admn 3 Apr 2012

The two linked claims challenge the lawfulness of a process known as ‘auto-bidding’ operated by the London Borough of Haringey as part of its scheme for allocating housing under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Judges: Underhill J Citations: [2012] EWHC 873 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 Part VI Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Rouse Tout A Tout, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey: Admn 3 Apr 2012

Simms v London Borough of Islington: CA 16 Oct 2008

The applicant, a recovering drug addict sought assistance as a homeless person in priority need. He said that he was subject to a risk of relapse. Held: The council had correctly applied the tests set out in Pereira and Osmani. They had been entitled to consider that he was not vulnerable within the section. Judges: … Continue reading Simms v London Borough of Islington: CA 16 Oct 2008

Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd and Another v Mott Macdonald Ltd: TCC 17 Jul 2008

The court was asked whether the implication of terms into a written contract implied that it was not a contract in writing under ection 107. HHJ Seymour QC said: ‘it may be necessary to consider carefully the effect of s. 107 of the 1996 Act as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in RJT . … Continue reading Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd and Another v Mott Macdonald Ltd: TCC 17 Jul 2008

Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Apr 2006

The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The applicants said this was discriminatory and infringed their human rights. Held: Legislation which prevented marriages of convenience between aliens and … Continue reading Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Apr 2006

Jelson Ltd v Derby City Council: ChD 30 Jun 1999

Agreements under the planning acts remained subject to the general law requiring formalities for contracts for the sale of land. Where two landowners had an understanding as to the expectations for the division of responsibility for provision of affordable housing between their respective plots, one could not be obliged to continue where the contract was … Continue reading Jelson Ltd v Derby City Council: ChD 30 Jun 1999

Selvarajan v Wilmot and others: CA 23 Jul 2008

The appellant had employed the three claimants in his medical surgery, but they claimed automatic unfair dismissal when the practice closed on his suspension from practice and the statutory procedures were followed but not to the procedural standard, alleging unreasonable delay in the appeals. Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The employees’ appeals failed. There was … Continue reading Selvarajan v Wilmot and others: CA 23 Jul 2008

Gilboy, Regina (on the Application of) v Liverpool City Council and others: CA 2 Jul 2008

The court was asked whether the internal review procedure for reconsideration by local housing authorities of a decision to terminate a demoted tenancy established by sections 143E-143F of the Housing Act 1996 and the Demoted Tenancies (Review of Decisions (England) Regulations 2004 violates Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. Judges: Waller LJ Citations: … Continue reading Gilboy, Regina (on the Application of) v Liverpool City Council and others: CA 2 Jul 2008

Jones v London Borough of Merton: CA 16 Jun 2008

The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease when he gives up possession of it or does it continue until, … Continue reading Jones v London Borough of Merton: CA 16 Jun 2008

O’Connor and Another v Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 30 Mar 2004

Judges: Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Carnwath Citations: [2004] EWCA Civ 394, (2004) HLR 37 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 191 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – F v Birmingham City Council CA 2-Nov-2006 The applicant sought housing as a homeless person with her children. The authority found her … Continue reading O’Connor and Another v Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 30 Mar 2004

Lee v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council: CA 9 Apr 2008

Renewed application for permission to appeal from order dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the housing officer that certain accommodation offered to her had been suitable and that the authority had thus discharged the respondent’s housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. Citations: [2008] EWCA Civ 523 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 … Continue reading Lee v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council: CA 9 Apr 2008

Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington: CA 22 Apr 2008

The claimant was a council tenant with the right to buy her property. A possession order was made, but then discharged. Held: On the revival of the tenancy her right to buy and discount was also revived, and there was no need to serve a fresh notice. Judges: Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Keene and … Continue reading Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington: CA 22 Apr 2008

Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council: CA 17 Apr 2008

The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed against a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it would have been reasonable for [them] to continue to occupy’. It … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council: CA 17 Apr 2008

London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison: CA 15 Apr 2008

The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of fact against which no appeal lay. The authority now appealing said … Continue reading London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison: CA 15 Apr 2008

Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd: TCC 14 Apr 2000

‘This application raises a short but important issue as to the propriety of a reference to adjudication pursuant to section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) of a dispute which, at the time of the reference, is already the subject of pending court proceedings. It is contended on … Continue reading Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd: TCC 14 Apr 2000