Archive for October 2007
Section 38(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 rendered void an agreement between the lessee of premises and the potential purchaser that the lessee would surrender its lease prior to the premises being purchased.
The Court of Appeal held that hope value was not a permissible element when valuing under Schedule 6 or 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Redevelopment Act 1993. It should therefore not be included when valuing the price to be paid for collective enfranchisement or lease extensions. Further, the Court of Appeal upheld the Lands Tribunal’s judgment that deferment rates used for calculating the value of a reversionary interest should be set at 4.75% for houses and 5% for flats.
Just a quick note on the Admin Court decision in Gilboy, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council & Anor  EWHC 2335 (Admin).
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 modifies Housing Act 1985 and 1996 to allow a secure tenancy to be changed to a ‘demoted tenancy’ via an application by the Council to [...]
Right then, Harouki v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea  EWCA Civ 1000.
The scene in a nutshell. A statutorily overcrowded household, in terms of Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985, s.326, which gives rise to a criminal offence under s.327
A homeless application under s.175 “entitled to occupy” and s.175(3) “reasonable to continue to [...]
Mr Justice Munby has issued a stern statement on the use and abuse of ex-parte injunction applications to the Administrative Court in R (Lawer) v Restormel Borough Council  EWHC 2299 (Admin).
Covering failure to use the Pre-Action Protocol, non-disclosure of material evidence, unexplained delay and requests for unreasonable periods of notice for application for [...]
The Court of Appeal stressed that in any case where the court was going to have to deal with plans, maps diagrams or photographs that they should be clearly marked and intelligible to the judges pre-reading the case.
[Edit Feb 2008 - Richmond have been given permission to appeal this judgment to the House of Lords. No date yet.]
An interesting situation, if perhaps an increasingly common one, has just been set out in the Court of Appeal case of Holmes-Moorhouse v London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames  EWCA Civ 970.
The situation is a family [...]
The Appellants failed in their appeal against a decision varying restrictive covenants so as to permit the conversion of a house into two flats. It was for the Court to make its own assessment of the relevant factors and the weight accorded to them and this exercise in judgement was separate from the planning process.
An order for sale of a property had been made 20 years ago. It was held that the judge had made the only order that could properly have been made in ordering the Appellant to vacate the property and finding that the claim was not statute barred.