eflash archive 2009
|368||R (Birmingham City Council) v Birmingham Crown Court
R (South Gloucestershire District Council) v Bristol Crown Court
 EWHC 3329 (Admin)
The Divisional Court has provided guidance on appealing out of time in ASBO proceedings to the Crown Court under Crown Court Rules 1982 (SI 1982/1109).
Jonathan Manning of Arden Chambers appeared on behalf of Birmingham City Council.
|367||R (Technoprint PLC / Snee) v Leeds City Council
 EWHC 3220 (QB)
Queen's Bench Division
9 December 2009
Andrew Arden QC and Iain Colville of Arden Chambers appeared for the Leeds City Council.
The High Court has held that where their Constitution required a local authority to 'agree' annually their Delegation Scheme, they did not need to agree their Delegation Scheme by express resolution each year but could also agree by conduct or by a combination of resolution and conduct.
|366||R (on the application of Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust, Equality & Human Rights
Commission intervening - further developments
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Brown
November 19, 2009
Andrew Arden Q.C. and Christopher Baker of Arden Chambers acted for LQHT.
The UK Supreme Court has issued a new statement of reasons for having decided to refuse permission to appeal in the Weaver case, by way of an order replacing the original issued on November 6, 2009. The new reasons invite a "leap-frog" appeal direct to the Supreme Court (ie under Administration of Justice Act 1969, s13) to be considered in another case where the same issue arises as in Weaver.
|365||Heron v Plymouth City Council
November 12, 2009
The Divisional Court has emphasised that the conditions of an anti-social behaviour order ("ASBO") must be precise and must target specific behaviour. A term in an ASBO which prohibited the defendant from causing harm, alarm or distress to any person was too imprecise and accordingly unenforceable.
|364||Gardiner v Haringey London Borough Council
 EWHC 2699 (Admin)
The High Court has held that a local authority were obliged to entertain an application for assistance under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996, because that application was not being made on the same facts as a previous application, which had been determined against the claimant. The information before the authority on the first application showed that provision in Columbia (where the claimant had a house) for dealing with the needs of her autistic daughter was significantly worse than in the UK. The material provided in support of the second application went further, however, and showed that remaining in Columbia would have a profoundly adverse impact on the daughter.
|363|| R (on the application of Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust, Equality & Human Rights Commission intervening
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
November 5, 2009
Lord Hope, Lady Hale, Lord Brown Andrew Arden Q.C. and Christopher Baker of Arden Chambers acted for LQHT.
The UK Supreme Court has decided to refuse to give LQHT permission to appeal in the Weaver case against the majority decision of the Court of Appeal  EWCA Civ 587, 18 June 2009. The Court of Appeal had held that LQHT acted as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, s6 when it served a notice of seeking possession; LQHT was according.
|362||Forcelux Ltd v Binnie
 EWCA Civ 854
A first hearing of possession claim under CPR 55.8 is not a trial. Accordingly, if a possession order is made in the defendant's absence, he does not have to apply for the order to be set aside under CPR 39.3. Rather, any application should be under CPR 3.1(2)(m).
|361||Ali v Birmingham City Council
Court of Appeal: Sir Anthony May (President of the Queen's Bench Division), Wall and Moore Bick LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1279
The Court of Appeal has held that the requirement in ss.193(5) and (7), Housing Act 1996, for a local authority to inform a homeless applicant of the consequences of refusing an offer of accommodation and of his right to seek a review of the suitability of that accommodation did not entail any additional obligation to ensure that the applicant understood the information provided. Accordingly, the authority were not obliged to translate an offer letter when dealing with a Somalian applicant who spoke little English where the applicant was aware of the availability of translation and interpretation services and had not asked for the letter to be translated.Jonathan Manning of Arden Chambers appeared for Birmingham City Council.
|360||Birmingham City Council v Qasim and others
Court of Appeal: Sir David Neuberger MR, Sedley LJ, Owen J
 EWCA Civ 1080
The Court of Appeal has held that a failure by a local housing authority properly to apply their allocation scheme will not invalidate any tenancies granted as a result of the unlawful allocation. There is no necessary relationship between an allocation under Part 6, Housing Act 1996, and the grant of a tenancy under Part 2, Housing Act 1985.Andrew Arden QC and Justin Bates of Arden Chambers appeared for the local authority.
Andrew Arden QC and Justin Bates of Arden Chambers appeared for the local authority.
|359||Swindon Borough Council v Redpath
Court of Appeal: Rix LJ, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Carnwath LJ
 EWCA Civ 943
The Court of Appeal has held that the court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-social behaviour injunction under s.153A, Housing Act 1996, against a former tenant of a local authority who continued a campaign of harassment against his former neighbours after his eviction, notwithstanding that the main victims of his behaviour were owner- occupiers.
Andrew Arden QC and Andrew Dymond of Arden Chambers appeared for the local authority.
|358||De-Winter Heald, Al-Jarah, Ahmad and Kidane v Brent LBC
Court of Appeal: Sedley LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ, Sir Simon Tuckey
 EWCA Civ 930
July 20 2009
David Carter and Simon Strelitz of Arden Chambers appeared on behalf of Ms De-Winter Heald.
The Court of Appeal has held that it is lawful for a local housing authority to contract out a review of a homelessness decision to a third party.
|357||R (on the application of Carol Van Boolen) v Barking and Dagenham LBC
 EWHC 2196 (Admin)
July 31 2009.
Jonathan Manning of Arden Chambers appeared on behalf of the authority.
The High Court has held that a local authority's policy concerning the reduction in priority of housing applicants with no local connection to the authority's district, did not have to be set out in their allocation scheme in full detail. The scheme referred to the possibility of a reduction in priority and the policy was not a central feature of the scheme.
|356||Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities
Supplementary Guidance on Intentional Homelessness
In the light of the current increase in the number of mortgage repossessions, the Government has issued supplementary guidance to authorities on intentional homelessness.
|355||Rafferty and Jones v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and North Somerset Council
Court of Appeal: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Scott Baker LJ, Smith LJ
 EWCA Civ 809
July 29 2009
The Court of Appeal has held that Article 8 is engaged in planning decisions concerning applications by gypsies to change the use of land for the purposes of establishing a permanent site for their caravans, notwithstanding that the caravan is not located on the land at the time of the planning application.
|354||Manchester City Council v Cleveland Pinnock
Court of Appeal: Mummery, Lloyd and Stanley Burnton LJJ.
 EWCA Civ 852.
July 31 2009 Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning appeared for Manchester City Council The Court of Appeal has held that, where possession proceedings are brought in respect of a demoted tenancy, the county court has no jurisdiction to entertain public law defences, but may only adjourn the proceedings for the defendant to seek permission to apply for judicial review. On judicial review, the court should assess the legality of the decision to evict by reference to conventional domestic public law principles, not by reference to the doctrine of proportionality.
|353||Elvington Park Ltd & Elvington Events Ltd v York City Council
 EWHC 1805 (Admin)
The High Court has emphasised that in noise nuisance cases, it is not necessary for an authority to specify in an abatement notice works or other steps required to abate the nuisance. The notice may simply require the person served to abate the nuisance. If the abatement notice does require action to be taken, however, that action must be specified in the notice.
|352||Stokes v Brent LBC
 EWHC 1426
The High Court has upheld a county court decision that a traveller had no seriously arguable defence on public law grounds to a claim for possession brought by a local authority. In the circumstances of the case, none of the factors relied on by the defendant could amount to a defence.
|351||Circle 33 Housing Trust v Kathirkmanathan
Court of Appeal: Ward and Jacob L.JJ.
2009] EWCA Civ 921
July 16, 2009
A tenant who gave an undertaking not to encourage others to commit a nuisance in his property was not in breach of that undertaking if he merely allowed or permitted others to commit a noise nuisance.
|350||Birmingham City Council v Ali and others; Moran v Manchester City Council
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
 UKHL 36
July 1 2009
The House of Lords has held that the question whether it is reasonable for a person to "continue to occupy" accommodation for the purposes of s.175(3), Housing Act 1996, requires consideration of the future position of the applicant as well as the current situation. In Ali, it was held that an authority is not necessarily in breach of their duty under s.193(2), 1996 Act, if they leave an applicant in his current accommodation, notwithstanding that they have already decided that it is not reasonable for him to continue to occupy that accommodation. In Moran, it was held that it was not reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy accommodation in a women's refuge.
|349||London District Properties Management Limited v Goolamy  EWHC 1367 (Admin) The High Court has held that where a fixed term assured tenancy includes a rent increase clause, that clause does not become a term of the statutory periodic tenancy that arises on expiry of the fixed term. Accordingly, the landlord can increase a statutory periodic tenant's rent by service of a notice under s.13, Housing Act 1988.||06/09||download (pdf)|
|348||Ryan v Islington London Borough Council  EWCA Civ 578 The Court of Appeal has held that a secure tenant who was exercising her right to buy under Pt 5, Housing Act 1985, could not insist on works to remedy subsidence affecting her flat being carried out before completion of the purchase.||06/09||download (pdf)|
|347||R (Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Court of Appeal: Rix LJ, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Elias LJ
 EWCA Civ 587
June 6 2009
Andrew Arden QC and Christopher Baker of Arden Chambers appeared on behalf of London & Quadrant Housing Trust. The Court of Appeal has held, by a majority, that a registered social landlord had acted as a public authority for the purposes of s.6 Human Rights Act 1998, and was accordingly amenable to judicial review, when serving a notice of seeking possession on a tenant.
|346||Hanoman v Southwark LBC  UKHL 29 The House of Lords has held that where a secure tenant who is exercising his right to buy serves an operative notice of delay under s.153B, Housing Act 1985, subsequent payments of housing benefit may be deducted from the purchase price as if they were payments of rent made by the tenant himself.||06/09||download (pdf)|
|345||Freeman v Islington LBC  EWCA Civ 536 Christopher Baker of Arden Chambers appeared on behalf of the authority. The Court of Appeal has held that, on a proper interpretation of s87 Housing Act 1985, the daughter of a terminally-ill secure tenant had not "resided with" him for the requisite period despite living with him 7 days a week in order to provide care, because it was necessary for there to be something which could fairly be described as homemaking, and she was accordingly not entitled to succeed to the tenancy.||06/09||download (pdf)|
|344||R (on the application of G) (FC) v Southwark London Borough Council  UKHL 26 Where a child is in need and requires accommodation under s.20, Children Act 1989, the authority must arrange for him to have accommodation under that section and cannot instead choose to arrange for him to be accommodated under the provisions of Pt 7, Housing Act 1996.||05/09||download (pdf)|
|343||The Abolition of Tolerated Trespass - The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Commencement No.5) Order 2009 (SI 2009/1261)
Housing (Replacement of Terminated Tenancies)
(Successor Landlords) (England) Order 2009 (SI 2009/1262) The provisions of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 relating to tolerated trespassers have been brought into force today (May 20, 2009).
|342||R (Breckland DC) v The Boundary Committee; R (East Devon DC) v Boundary Committee for England
Court of Appeal, Sir Anthony May, Dyson and Richards LJJ
 EWCA civ 239 Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning appeared for East Devon DC. The Court of Appeal has decided that the Boundary Committee misdirected itself in law, and failed in its duty of public consultation, in conducting a process under Pt 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, in response to a request by the Secretary of State for advice whether to implement unitary local government in Norfolk and Devon. There had been no delay by the authorities in claiming judicial review; nor were the challenges premature.
|341||Bracknell Forest BC v Green  EWCA Civ 238 March 20, 2009, Court of Appeal
David Carter and Toby Vanhegan appeared on for Bracknell Forest Borough Council.
The Court of Appeal has held that the suitability of alternative accommodation offered to a secure tenant against whom a landlord is claiming possession on ground 16 of Sch.2 to the Housing Act 1985 is relevant to whether it is reasonable to make a possession order.
|340||R (Ahmad) v Newham LBC  UKHL 14, 4 March 2009
Andrew Arden QC and Christopher Baker of Arden Chambers appeared on behalf of the authority. The House of Lords has held that a local authority's housing allocation scheme was not unlawful in the manner in which it afforded priority according to the relative gravity of applicants' needs or in the priority given to transfer applicants.
|339||Mitchell v Glasgow City Council  UKHL 11
The House of Lords has held where a local authority landlord intends to take action against a tenant who has perpetrated acts of anti-social behaviour against his neighbour, the authority do not owe a duty of care to the neighbour to warn him about the action that they are about to take.
|338||Ugiagbe v Southwark LBC
 EWCA Civ 31
The Court of Appeal has reiterated that a homeless person who foolishly or imprudently fails to follow advice may still be acting in good faith within the meaning of s.191(2), Housing Act 1996, with the consequence that he is not intentionally homeless if he consequently gives up accommodation.
|337||Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC  UKHL 7
Lords Hoffmann, Scott of Foscote, Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord
Neuberger of Abbotsbury Andrew Arden QC of Arden Chambers led for the authority. Whether the child of a homeless applicant can reasonably be expected to reside with him for the purposes of establishing priority need under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996, is a matter for the local authority to determine and cannot be dictated by the terms of any shared residence order made by a family court.
|336||R (Hassan) v Croydon LBC
Administrative Court. January 13, 2008
Emily Orme of Arden Chambers appeared for the Claimant.
The Administrative Court has held that when a local authority are considering whether to exercise their discretion under s.188(3), Housing Act 1996, to continue to secure interim accommodation for a homeless applicant pending a review, they are not required to take into account the fact that they would owe the applicant's children a duty under s.20, Children Act 1989, if interim accommodation were not secured.
|335||R (East Devon DC) v the Electoral Commission, Boundary Committee for England
 EWHC 4 (Admin)
Andrew Arden QC and Jonathan Manning of Arden Chambers appeared for the Claimant.
The Administrative Court has decided that the Boundary Committee misdirected itself in law in conducting a process under Pt 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, in response to a request by the Secretary of State for advice whether to implement unitary local government in Devon. The claim was, however, held to be premature and, in any event, relief would be refused in the exercise of the court's discretion as the process had incurred considerable time, effort and expense. The court dismissed two other grounds for challenge.
February 25, 2013
speakers & seminars
February 20, 2013
May 10, 2013