Archive for July 2011
This is not a housing case, but it is an important case on costs in settled claims for judicial review, which is a major issue for many housing practitioners.
The Court of Appeal considered five joined appeals in immigration judicial review claims all on the issue of costs following consent orders. In each case, no order as to costs was made. The issue was whether a) the Judges had correctly interpreted R (Boxall) v Waltham Forest LBC 21 December 2000 (2001) 4 CCL Rep 258 and b) whether the test… Read the full post
Falastin Amin v Brent LBC, Wandsworth County Court 2011
A county court s.204 appeal on the issue of eligibility of an EU citizen as a ‘wroker’. While it is not binding, it sets out a clear position which, given the involvement of Minos Perdios in the review decision, could well be of broader relevance. The following report was provided by lawyers in the case.
Mrs Amin is a Danish Citizen. She applied to Brent for assistance as a homeless person. At the time of her application she was unemployed, however, between the s184 decision and the review decision she obtained part-time work as a Customer Care Assistant working 16 hours… Read the full post
X, Y & Z v the United Kingdom – 32666/10  ECHR 1199
The long and sorry story of X & Y v Hounslow appears to have reached an end. As you will recall, this was the case that resulted from the horrendous abuse of two highly vulnerable Hounslow tenants in their home by youths. Hounslow had been aware of the danger to X & Y in the period leading up to the abuse but had failed to make any provision to transfer them to alternative, safer, accommodation. At first instance, the High Court found for X & Y on a claim based on negligence (our report), then the… Read the full post
It is certainly not a truism that legislation which is given the closest possible scrutiny is thereafter free from doubt – consider, for example, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, which we always used to call the mysterious provisions Act because nobody was quite sure what its ambit was (as has subsequently proved to be the case). However, it is a pretty good rule of thumb that legislation which is rushed through without proper consideration or proper consultation is going to be laden with doubt – consider the rent deposit debacle on which my colleagues at NL have been moved to comment on endlessly. Further, when that legislation… Read the full post
In Barnsley MBC v Norton  EWCA Civ 834, the Court of Appeal considered the application of section 49A(1)(d), Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to the decision of Barnsley to seek and obtain a possession order against Mr Norton and his family. Section 49A(1)(d) reads as follows:
(1) Every public authority shall in carrying out its functions have due regard to … (d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons.
There was an Article 8 defence but the appeal was decided on the basis of this provision (and its successor, s 149,… Read the full post
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has been rather busy recently, handing down four housing-law related decisions in the last fortnight or so. The first three are service charge disputes, whilst the fourth is a lease variation case.
In Tunstill v Primrose Mansions Ltd  UKUT 288 (LC), the issue was the extent to which the appellant was liable to pay towards the costs of a porterage service. The property had, in effect, a day porter, who was on-site during the day, and a night porter who was on-call. The relevant covenant provided the landlord with a power to “employ during normal working hours such servant or servants as” are… Read the full post
The Argentinian debt crisis of 2001 – 2003, and subsequent restructurings, have kept commercial lawyers busy all over the globe as investors have sought to recoup as much of their investments into the country as possible. In NML Capital v Argentina…