Garrett v Lidl Ltd: EAT 16 Dec 2009

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
HARASSMENT
A move to a different store could amount to a reasonable adjustment. In considering harassment it is important to consider the effect on the alleged victim irrespective of the motive.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0541 – 08 – 1612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.393338

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AV: Admn 30 Apr 2009

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 902 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AR v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the Home Secretary to vary the control order made against him under the 2005 Act.
Held: The organisation of which the applicant was a member might soon enter into a settlement with the Libyan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.341851

R, Regina v: CACD 9 Oct 2000

Appeals against the imposition of a restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 imposed in conjunction with a section 37 order under the same Act

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Crim 3539

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.331143

Doubtfire, Regina v: CACD 19 Dec 2000

Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission of conviction of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing a class A drug, Ecstasy – use of public interest immunity orders – allegation of prosecutorial withholding of evidence from the court on applying.
Held: Allowed

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Crim 101, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 13, [2001] Crim LR 813

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.331149

Johnson, Regina v: CACD 24 Oct 2000

Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Conviction of robbery – identification evidence

Judges:

The Lord Woolf of Barnes

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Crim 102, [2001] 1 Cr App Rep 26, [2001] Crim LR 125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.331140

Thomas (T/A Abacus Construction) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 19 Feb 2009

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – Requirement for security under para. 4(2)(a), Sch. 11, VATA – no returns made for 10 consecutive VAT periods – Appeal considered in the absence of the Appellant – Held, the requirement had not been shown to be unreasonable – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKVAT V20958

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.346546

United States of America v Cobb: 5 Apr 2001

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Fundamental justice – Remedies — Extradition — Whether considerations relating to fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Whether extradition judge ought to have waited for ministerial decision on surrender before granting stay — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 24 — Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, s. 9(3).
The USA had indicted a large number of defendants, including the two Canadian appellants, on mail fraud charges. Many had submitted voluntarily to the Court in Pennsylvania and on sentencing one of them the trial judge had said ‘I want you to believe me that as to those people who don’t come in and cooperate and if we get them extradited and they are found guilty, as far as I am concerned they are going to get the absolute maximum jail sentence that the law permits me to give.’
About a week before the Canadian extradition hearing the American prosecuting attorney was interviewed on Canadian television and said: ‘I have told some of these individuals, ‘look, you can come down and you can put this behind you by serving your time in prison and making restitution to the victims, or you can wind up serving a great deal longer sentence under much more stringent conditions’ and describe those conditions to them.’
Asked by the interviewer ‘How would you describe those conditions?’, the attorney replied: ‘You are going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition’. That was understood by the Court to mean that they would be subject to homosexual rape. Asked then: ‘And does that have much of an impact on these people?’, the attorney answered: ‘Well, out of the 89 people we have indicted so far, approximately 55 of them have said, ‘We give up”.
Held: The appela was alloed, and te extradition process was stayed.
Arbour J said: ‘By placing undue pressure on Canadian citizens to forego due legal process in Canada, the foreign state has disentitled itself from pursuing its recourse before the courts and attempting to show why extradition should legally proceed. The intimidation bore directly upon the very proceedings before the extradition judge . . [The judge] was also correct in concluding as he did that this was one of the clearest of cases where to proceed further with the extradition hearing would violate ‘those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community’s sense of fair play and decency’ (Keyowski [1988] 1 SCR 657, 658-659), since the requesting state in the proceedings, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, had not repudiated the statements of some of its officials that an unconscionable price would be paid by the appellants for having insisted on exercising their rights under Canadian law.’

As to the argument based on the appellants not in fact having been dissuaded from exercising their procedural rights: ‘I find no merit in this argument. It may very well be that the threats of the severe and illegal consequences that may follow their resistance to extradition may have made the appellants more, not less, determined to resist their surrender. Frankly, this would have been quite understandable. The abuse of process here consists in the attempt to interfere with the due process of the court. The success or failure of that interference is immaterial.’

Judges:

McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 SCR 587, (2001) 197 DLR (4th) 46, (2001) 152 CCC (3d) 270, (2001) 41 CR (5th) 81, (2001) 81 CRR (2d) 226, (2001) 145 OAC 3

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Constitutional

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.272792

MEC for Education: KwazuluNatal and Others v Pillay: 5 Oct 2007

(Constitutional Court of South Africa) A rule which prevented a Tamil-Hindu girl from wearing a nose stud which was central to her cultural and religious identity was discriminatory on religious and cultural grounds. The court rejected an argument similar to the one put forward in this case that the refusal to offer the girl an exemption to the uniform code was justified to promote uniformity and acceptable conventional among students.
Langer CJ said that the comparator group which was treated better than the claimant was those pupils: ‘whose sincere religious cultural beliefs or practices, or religious beliefs or practices are not compromised by the [Uniform] Code, as compared to those whose beliefs or practices are compromised’.

Judges:

Langer CJ

Citations:

[2007] ZACC 21

Links:

Saflii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins-Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School and Another Admn 29-Jul-2008
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Discrimination

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.271242

United States of America v Shulman: 5 Apr 2001

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Mobility rights — Right to remain in Canada – Extradition – Whether mobility rights engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 6(1).

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Fundamental justice — Extradition — Whether considerations relating to fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.

Extradition — Extradition process — Scope of Charter jurisdiction of extradition judge at committal stage — Whether mobility rights and considerations of fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Whether extradition judge competent to grant Charter remedies — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 6, 7, 24 — Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, s. 9(3).

Extradition — Extradition process — Remedies — Charter jurisdiction — Abuse of process — Role of appellate courts.

Extradition — Evidence — Fresh evidence — Fugitive seeking to adduce fresh evidence in Court of Appeal — Evidence including threats uttered by U.S. prosecutor — Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing fugitive’s motion to adduce fresh evidence — Whether fresh evidence revealed abuse of process — If so, whether stay of proceedings should be granted.

Extradition — Evidence — Admissibility — Affidavit evidence referring to fugitive’s allegedly unlawful activities provided by alleged co-conspirators — Alleged co-conspirators awaiting sentence when affidavit material prepared and sworn — Fugitive claiming that co-conspirators’ evidence infringed principles of fundamental justice and constituted abuse of process — Whether extradition judge and Court of Appeal correct in refusing to exclude affidavit evidence — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 24.

Judges:

McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ

Citations:

2001 SCC 21, [2001] 1 SCR 616, (2001) 197 DLR (4th) 69, (2001) 152 CCC (3d) 294, (2001) 81 CRR (2d) 245, (2001) 41 CR (5th) 100, (2001) 145 OAC 201

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.272793

HM Advocate v Cunningham: 1963

Citations:

1963 SLT 345

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Explained – Cardle v Mulrainey HCJ 1992
The defendant drank lager into which a third party had put amphetamine. He then tried to start vehicles belonging to others with the intention of taking them away. He also took some property from one of the vehicles. The sheriff acquitted him. The . .
Cited – Regina v Kingston HL 22-Jul-1994
Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.272895

AD (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Mar 2008

Applications for permission to appeal out of time and for permission to appeal from the decision of the AIT dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266782

Regina v Janceski: 18 Aug 2005

(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The NSW statute required that an indictment should be signed by any one of a number of persons specified in the section, including a person authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions to sign indictments, and empowered the DPP by order in writing to authorise persons to sign indictments for him and on his behalf. The defendant said that his indictment had been signed by a barrister in private practice and not authorised by the DPP. Defence Counsel argued that Sections 1 and 2 of the 1933 Act require a bill of indictment to be signed by the proper officer before it can become an indictment. The task of the court is to ascertain from the terms of the Act what Parliament intended the consequence to be if a bill of indictment is not duly signed. Setting aside extraordinary facts such as those considered in R v Jackson, the answer is clear: if a bill is not signed, it does not become an indictment; if there is no indictment, there can be no valid trial on indictment. Parliament did not intend that a defendant could be tried on indictment without an indictment.
Held: The submission was correct, the indictment was invalid and teh appeals succeeded.

Judges:

Spigelman CJ Wood CJ at CL Hunt AJA Howie J Johnson J

Citations:

(2005) 64 NSWLR 10, [2005] NSWCCA 281

Links:

Austlii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Morais CACD 1988
A High Court judge had given leave to prefer a voluntary bill against the appellant, who was arraigned on six counts in the voluntary bill. He pleaded not guilty, was convicted on four counts and was sentenced. Relying on section 2 of the 1933 Act, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.267624

Mutlu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2007

Renewed application for permission to appeal – applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the applicant indefinite leave to remain, which had been sought pursuant to the Secretary of State’s long stay policy contained in paragraphs 276(A) to (B) of the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 395). Inherent in that decision was a further refusal, namely, not to revoke a deportation order earlier made in relation to the applicant.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1517

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266577

In Re G (Children) (Leave to Remove): CA 11 Dec 2007

An application was made with regard to the care arrangements for children. The parents were living in different countries.
Thorpe LJ stated: ‘ Accordingly, the only skeleton in support of the appellant’s notice is the skeleton settled by Mr Mostyn QC and Mrs Carew Pole as long ago as 12 October. The thrust of that skeleton is to suggest that the leading authority in this court, the case of Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052, was now outdated and heavily criticised, both in this jurisdiction and beyond, by judges, practitioners and academics. The decision in Payne v Payne was, I think, available in February 2001, and in the skeleton argument it was suggested that it was antiquated, in that it reflected the view of a past age when joint residence orders would only be made in wholly exceptional circumstances. The essential complaint was that in modern times, when joint residence orders have become commonplace, judges were applying the principles in Payne v Payne, or some judges were applying the principles in Payne v Payne, which were predicated upon a status of sole residence order and sole primary carer. The skeleton, further emphasises two judgments at first instance, where judges of the Family Division have declined to follow the guidelines in Payne on the basis that the case before them was a case in which there was no clear primary carer.
That, in my judgment, would be an extremely difficult argument to advance in this court. Clearly this court is bound by the decision in Payne v Payne so long as there is not a self-evident social shift that requires its reconsideration. I am far from persuaded that there has been any social shift and would only emphasise that the decision in the influential case of D v D [2001] 1 FLR 495 was given some months earlier, on 20th November 2000. In D v D, both the President and Hale LJ emphasised that joint residence orders were certainly not to be labelled as exceptional. That would be an unwarranted gloss on the statute. They were part of the menu of choice for trial judges, and where the circumstances suggested that form of order then it was an order that would be supported by this court. That shift from a position that obtained in the 1990s must have been well in the mind of this court, given that both in Payne and in D v D the presiding judge was the former President, Baroness Butler-Sloss. Furthermore, as Mr Cobb has pointed out in his skeleton argument, an analysis of the facts in Payne v Payne demonstrates that the father there, prior to the judgment in the county court, had been having the children at his home for much the same proportion of the year as the father in this case.
So the grounds within the appellant’s notice, skilfully settled by counsel, opened with the first, that namely:
‘The current principles applicable in relocation cases need to be reviewed, as they place an impermissible gloss on the statute; wrongly prioritise one factor above all others (the impact of refusal on the primary carer); are out of step with modern views of the dynamics of family life and of the importance of co-parenting; are inconsistent with the approach taken in many overseas courts, both common-law and civil, and are the subject of serious public criticism, both popularly and by the legal community.’
A submission to that effect, I recognise, might be open in an appeal to the House of Lords, but plainly not at this level; and accordingly I refused permission on that ground whilst granting the limited opportunity on the remaining grounds, 2 to 12.
That resulted in a letter from the appellant’s solicitors, in which they somewhat retreated from an earlier stated intention to argue for permission on Ground 1 at this oral hearing, something that they were obviously entitled to do, given that the refusal had been only a paper refusal. However the letter of 16th retreated to the extent of this statement:
‘on reflection [we] think that Ground 1 has perhaps been too strongly stated. In essence we would wish to argue that the current principles as enunciated in Payne v Payne have been much misunderstood and frequently misapplied by lower courts (inasmuch as they appear to deduce from these principles (a), the prioritisation of one factor above all others – the impact of refusal on the primary carer – and (b), the disregard of modern views on the importance of co-parenting), and therefore should be restated in such a way that future misapplications and misunderstandings do not occur.’
‘ Mr Mostyn, at the very end of his submissions, came to address this point. That he had left it to the end is perhaps a reflection of the difficulties that confronted him in advancing it. A decision of this court stands and requires no correction, so long as the principles enunciated remain good. He was not suggesting that Payne v Payne had been wrongly decided and should therefore be revisited. He was only suggesting that it was being widely misunderstood. That does not seem to me to be an issue that can be in an individual case. In the individual case, all that is in issue is whether the judge has correctly or incorrectly understood and applied the principles. Mr Mostyn sought to contend that there was amongst the practitioners some sort of general perception that district judges at conciliation appointments are applying unfair pressure on respondents to relocation applications. My Lord, Wall LJ, quite properly stopped that line of submission and it is important, I think, to emphasise that applications for permission in this area are commonplace and in view of the importance that the decision has both for the children and for their emotionally distraught parents, we not infrequently grant some sort of oral hearing, generally on notice and generally with appeal to follow.
The volume of such applications and hearings is not inconsiderable and only a proportion of those reach the specialist law reports. I see almost all those cases and I certainly have no impression that the principles in Payne are being misunderstood and misapplied. Very often the trial takes place before a circuit judge who may not be a specialist in international family law and may have nothing but a private law ticket to equip him for the task, but cases in which we have had to intervene on the grounds of misdirection are infrequent. Sometimes this court has intervened and allowed an appeal. Sometimes this court has had no hesitation in upholding the decision below as a decision that particularly fell for the judge, who had had the advantage of seeing and hearing the oral evidence and who in the end had had to apply a very difficult balance of a number of competing factors.
These cases are particularly traumatic for the parties, since each of them conceives so much as being at stake. They are very, very difficult cases for the trial judges. Often the balance is very fine between grant and refusal. The judge is only too aware of how heavily invested each of the parents is in the outcome for which they contend. The judges are very well aware of how profoundly the decision will affect the future lives of the children and how difficult it will be for the disappointed parent to adjust to the outcome. Despite the difficulties that these cases present, certainly from the perspective of this court, the principles enunciated in Payne v Payne are well understood and have been of evident assistance to trial judges in the difficult task that they perform. That is all that I need to say about the submission with which Mr Mostyn concluded.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Arden LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1497, [2008] 1 FLR 1587

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Re-affirmed – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.

Cited by:

Cited – In re AR (A Child: Relocation) FD 10-Jun-2010
Both parents had parental responsibility. The French mother wished to return to live in France and to take the five year old child with her, applying to court for the appropriate order.
Held: The court pointed to the real difficulties always . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266571

FK (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Dec 2007

Appeal in which the issue centres around the concept of proportionality in applying Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), particularly where there has been significant delay on the part of the Secretary of State in dealing with an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266570

Antler Homes Wessex Ltd., Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another: Admn 16 Apr 2008

Appeal against refusal of planning permission for demolition of two houses for redevelopment. Application of Settlement Boundary Policy.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 951 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.267408

Regina (Britton) v Croydon Crown Court: 2000

The Crown Court is a single court.

Judges:

Hooper J

Citations:

(2000) 164 JP 729

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 76 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – R, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266480

Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 9 Apr 2008

The tax-payer had assigned it’s business to the claimant, and with it the right to reclaim overpaid VAT. The commissioners appealed a finding that the right to claim a refund was assignable.
Held: The appeal failed. The statute would have to have included a prohibition on assignment for one to be in place: ‘It was to be presumed that unless otherwise stated, a right which was created by statute was assignable in the same way as rights created by the general law. There was nothing to exclude the ordinary law that a claim under section 80 might be assigned.’

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 305, Times 22-Apr-2008, [2008] Bus LR 1187

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266517

Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand: CA 20 Dec 2006

The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to argue for a suspension of the order for possession.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1860, [2007] HLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1980 89(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Still Good Law – McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown CA 1973
The court was asked to make an order against persons unknown in order to recover land. Although an owner of land which was being occupied by squatters was entitled to take the remedy into his own hand, he was encouraged to go to a common law court . .
Cited – Bibby and others v Sumintra Partap and others PC 20-May-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had the power to suspend a possession order against a trespasser pending the outcome of an appeal. . .
Cited – Swordheath Properties Ltd v Floyd 1978
The rules relatng to the grant of immediate possession to a landowner as against squatters applied in the County Court just as much as in the High Court. The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the . .
Cited – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England CA 1988
The main contractor on the site subcontracted the interior plastering. Fifteen years later, the plasterwork collapsed causing injury. The plasterer had not used the plaster specified.
Held: Appeal allowed. A contractor may have contractual or . .
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 – Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd QBD 14-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with . .
Cited – Bain and Co v Church Commissioners for England ChD 1989
Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling . .

Cited by:

Cited – Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another CA 25-Nov-2008
The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266550

Gargett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 8 Apr 2008

The tenant applicant said that the authority had a power to make a discretionary housing payment to cover arrears of rent incurred after an increase.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 663 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gargett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lambeth CA 18-Dec-2008
The applicant was an assured tenant receiving housing benefits. Her rent was increased to a level above what would normally be covered by benefits. She failed to notify the local authority. The court was asked whether local authorities may exercise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Benefits

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266507