Archive for August 2008
Field Common Ltd v Elmbridge Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2079 (Ch) (27 August 2008)
The local authority widened an access road to its industrial estate by laying tarmac on the Claimant’s land. The local authority was liable to pay damages for the acts of trespass on the land and the damages should be assessed on the basis of the hypothetical negotiation for the right to use and license others to use the land
Comments Off
Pre-emptive possession orders
Secretary of State for the Environment Food & Rural Affairs v Meier & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 903 was a case concerning travellers encamped on Forestry Commission land. Some of the travellers had previously camped on a nearby patch of Forestry Commission land until a possession order was obtained. The Forestry Commission (or rather the [...]
Comments Off
Having regard…
M & M Savant Limited v Brown and others LRX/26/2006
It is a shame that this case was decided in 2008, and not in 1998 when it would have had a much greater relevance. It contains a comprehensive analysis of s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 prior to the wide ranging amendments made by the Commonhold [...]
Comments Off
Surely your best point is?
Swanlane Estates Ltd v Woods and others LRX/159/2007 (.pdf)
This case concerns the not uncommon situation of a court or tribunal (in this case, a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) taking a point which the applicant / claimant had not expressly pleaded and the respondent / defendant then losing the case on that very point.
Mr Wood and a [...]
Comments Off
ASB corner
The August 2008 Legal Action contains a couple of cases concerning anti-social behaviour possession claims that weren’t recorded elsewhere.
Ealing LBC v Jama B5/08/0104 was a Court of Appeal matter. Mrs Jama was Ealing’s secure tenant of a two bed property. The household included her husband and six children. Ealing sought possession on allegations of ASB [...]
Comments Off
M & M Savant Ltd v Brown & Ors [2008] EWLands LRX_26_2006 (08 August 2008)
Landlord and Tenant: The Tribunal considered whether the landlord had carried out consultation in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord sent the tenants a letter telling them the estimates for building works were available for inspection at its offices. It did not include the estimates thermselves. The Tribunal held that the statutory obligation had not been complied with as the offices were 8-10 miles away from the properties and thus this did not constitute a display within section 20(4)(b).
Comments Off
Fife Council v Buchan – Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, 11 June 2008
The Pursuer, a local housing authority, was the landlord of a property occupied by the Defender. The Pursuer sought recovery of possession and payment of arrears of rent after the Defender received a custodial sentence for having a prohibited weapon, a revolver, and counterfeit currency in his possession at the property. There was little dispute over the material facts. Schedule 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 sets out grounds on which the court may order recovery of possession. Paragraph 2(b) refers to the tenant having been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment committed in, or in the locality of, the house. Section 16(2)(a) provides that the court must make an order for recovery of possession if it appeared that the landlord had a ground for recovery as set out in the relevant part of Schedule 2 and that it was reasonable to make the order. The Defender opposed the order for recovery of possession and argued inter alia that paragraph 2(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 was limited to cases of drug dealing only; that, if evicted, he would lose contact with his 6 year old son; and that he would be homeless. The Sheriff heard evidence and considered the relevant statutory factors and also other factors which the parties set out and concluded that the provisions of paragraph 2(b) had been satisfied. He did not accept that paragraph 2(b) was limited to cases of drug dealing only. The offences of which the Defender had been convicted lay at the high end of seriousness and the Defender was solely responsible for the offences. The nature of the area in which the tenant lived was relevant. The Pursuer had gone to some lengths to improve the area and the Sheriff considered that the Pursuer being seen to take action in a case such as this was a relevant consideration. Termination of the tenancy would not mean an end to contact between the Defender and his son, although contact may become more difficult. Balancing all these factors, the Sheriff concluded that the Pursuer had shown that it was reasonable that an order should be granted, together with decree for payment of the rent arrears.
Comments Off
Retrospective CFAs
Forde v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 90105 (Costs)
In brief, where a firm had asked a client to sign a second CFA for a disrepair claim, at a time when it appeared that the first CFA might be found unenforceable, and the second CFA provided for a success fee where the first one didn’t:
a) was [...]
Comments Off
What is a locality?
R (on the application of Heffernan) (FC) (Appellant) v The Rent Service) (Respondents) [2008] UK 58 concerns the meaning of locality in para 4(6) of Part 1 Schedule 1 Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997.
Locality serves to define the area by reference to which the Local Reference Rent was established and hence the level of [...]
Comments Off
Enforcing positive covenants
Cantrell v Wycombe District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 866 concerns enforcement of positive covenants by a Local Authority.
In return for funds towards the purchase of another property, a housing association had granted the Council nomination rights to six properties, including the one at issue, the agreement was said to be made pursuant to s.609 Housing Act [...]
Comments Off