Archive for March 2008
This is the second of the two judicial reviews of Southwark’s allocation scheme and arguably the more significant of the two. (The first case is in the previous post.)
R(Faarah) v Southwark LBC  EWHC 529 (Admin) concerned Southwark’s managment of the transition from a points based scheme to a CBL scheme and specifically the award [...]
I’ve been waiting to post on the outcome of two judicial reviews of Southwark’s allocation scheme for a while, hoping they would appear on BAILII. They haven’t, but Garden Court have briefly set out the cases in their 24 March bulletin. So, here is the first of two posts on these cases.
R(Yazar) v Southwark LBC [...]
S v Floyd  EWCA Civ 201 is a Court of Appeal case in which the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is considered in relation to a mandatory Ground 8 possession claim by a private landlord.
In some ways, there is nothing particularly surprising in the case – the Court found that the DDA was not engaged [...]
Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association  EWCA Civ 196 is a Court of Appeal judgment on an appeal of an application for revival of tenancy where all the arrears were paid off on a breached suspended possession order.
The Court of Appeal was presented with the opportunity to follow its own 1958 decision of Payne [...]
The judge upheld the decision of an adjudicator that where parties had executed a written document that only contained some of the express terms of a contract there was no common mistake and no order for rectification was possible. Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 required a written document to incorporate all the terms the parties had expressly agreed.
I’m eagerly awaiting the judgment in R(Weaver) v London & Quadrant, but, in one of those quirks of synchronicity, Bailii has just put the Court of Appeal Judgment in Donoghue v Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd & Anor  EWCA Civ 595 up online. It made an interesting re-read, thinking about the issues [...]
The management company of an industrial estate sought to introduce a car parking scheme. The Respondent objected to the scheme particularly due to the imposition of an overnight fee. The judge found the scheme to be unreasonable on the basis the Appellant had not researched the proper local market rate for overnight parking. The Court of Appeal held that if the fees were reasonable it did not matter how they had been arrived at. The judge had reversed the burden of proof and it was for the objector to prove the scheme was unreasonable and not for the management company to have to show it was reasonable.
Where a possession order is sought under Ground 16 Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 (under-occupation on succession), what happens to the tenant’s right to buy? And is this a factor in weighing the suitability of alternative accommodation and the reasonableness of making an order?
Manchester City Council v Benjamin  EWCA Civ 189, a Court [...]
Where a transfer document contained covenants that defined a specified party as transferor and did not include successors in title, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the word “transferor” meant that specified party alone or also included successors in title. In this case the court determined that the original parties to the transfer never contemplated a situation where there would be successors in title and therefore the word “transferor” meant the named party only.
And so to the last of the marathon of housing case notes I’ve knocked out over the last few days….
This was reported in the Law Gazette, Mansfield District Council v Langridge (2008) CA (Civ Div), (free access at the time of writing) and is not yet on Bailii. This is a pity, because I really [...]