“A recent High Court decision in which a tenant was entitled to remove large items it had installed on rented premises will provide comfort to developers in the energy and minerals sectors, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669; [2013] WLR (D) 235
“Where a tenant had paid a deposit under an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term which began before, but ended after, the commencement of section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, the landlord was obliged to deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme within 14 days of the coming into being of a new statutory periodic tenancy upon expiry of the fixed term; and by virtue of section 215(1) of the 2004 Act, non-compliance with that obligation precluded service by the landlord of a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Granting a licence for alterations without the consent of the guarantor can be enough to discharge the guarantor’s liability under the lease, the High Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“There are still some questions to be cleared up on tenancy deposit law and this Court of Appeal case neatly deals with one of them, while opening up what might be a very large can of worms.”
NearlyLegal, 15th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Reading Borough Council v Holt [2013] EWCA Civ 641; [2013] WLR (D) 222
“When determining whether a possession order should be made under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985, the expression ‘suitable accommodation’ in section 84(2)(b) and (c) and Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 was broad enough to encompass accommodation identified by reference to its essential characteristics and did not require the identification of a specific property.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“We’ve all seen the ubiquitous scene from the American court-room drama where the bespectacled and previously underrated legal assistant/student/intern etc. bursts into the back of the crowded court, and shouts ‘State v. Jones’ whilst waving the paper judgment triumphantly at the judge. The judge is thereby stopped from making the patently unjust ruling he was about to make, changing his mind in favour of the film’s protagonist. This doesn’t happen in real life, so it was with much anticipation that I awaited the case of Johnson v Old [2013] EWCA Civ 415, which I used in court less than 24 hours after it was handed down. My thanks go to Karen Reid, one of our pupils at 1 Gray’s Inn Square, who rushed from the RCJ, clutching the judgment, ink still drying from Sir John Chadwick’s quill (well, printer at least).”
The Barristers’ Hub, 12th June 2013
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
“In Avon Estates (London) Limited v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited [2013] UKUT 0264 (LC) [not online yet we have a transcript] the Upper Tribunal considered the question of whether an insurance premium had been reasonable incurred.”
NearlyLegal, 11th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The entrepreneurialisation of social housing over the last twenty years has led to a diversity in the types of shared ownership. Of course, the standard leasehold type (what in the old days was called DIYSO) predominates, but there are a multitude of other types. In Ker v Optima Community Association [2013] EWCA Civ 579, the Court of Appeal had to deal with one of these other types in Optima’s claim for possession; but in quite odd circumstances for, by the time of the hearing of the appeal, Ms Ker had accepted that the property was unaffordable for her so that she had to give up possession. What was in issue seems to have been whether she was entitled to return of some of the amounts she had paid. Patten LJ, who gave the only substantive judgment, held that she did not have such a claim and ordered possession.”
NearlyLegal, 25th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Loveridge v Lambeth London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 494; [2013] WLR (D) 173
“The valuation required by section 28(1) of the Housing Act 1988, in respect of damages for unlawful eviction under section 27, required that the propensity for the rights of a tenant of a local authority to change from those of a secure tenant to those of an assured tenant on a sale of the reversion to a private landlord was to be factored into the hypothetical valuation of the landlord’s interest subject to the tenant’s rights.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Morshead Mansions has been involved in a quite astonishing amount of litigation. Bailii throws up 13 hits, cases in the LVT, Lands Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal. It’s really must be the most awful burden on all those involved. And now, there is another case to add to the list, Di Marco v Morshead Mansions Ltd [2013] EWHC 1068 (Ch).”
NearlyLegal, 14th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Those with good memories will remember that a year or so ago the Upper Tribunal gave judgment in a case called Om Property Management Ltd v Burr (our note here) in which the issue was at what point in time does a cost became incurred for the purposes of s.20B, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It decided that costs became incurred on the presentation of an invoice or on payment. Mr Burr appealed against that decision and the Court of Appeal recently gave its judgment on the subject.”
NearlyLegal, 10th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Burr v OM Property Management Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 479; [2013] WLR (D) 164
“When determining the amount of any service charge payable by a tenant for services supplied, on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ‘costs’ were not ‘incurred’ on the mere provision of the services or supplies made to the landlord or management company.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Burr v OM Property Management Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 479; [2013] WLR (D) 164
“When determining the amount of any service charge payable by a tenant for services supplied, on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ‘costs’ were not ‘incurred’ on the mere provision of the services or supplies made to the landlord or management company.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“At the very beginning of social housing, with the Peabody Estates in the 1860s, prospective tenants faced imposed requirements that we would now consider to be extraneous to the tenancy: Mandatory smallpox vaccinations; curfews; and cleaning rotas before 10 am for communal areas, sinks and WCs. But even the Victorian paternalists didn’t lower themselves to the patronising, small minded and teeth-grindingly passive-aggressive approach apparently in vogue for 21st century social landlords.”
NearlyLegal, 29th April 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Lane v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (19 April 2013) – extempore judgement by Sir Raymond Jack QBD.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The Court of Appeal has been turning its mind to another of the odd questions that has sprung from the fertile litigious bosom of tenancy deposit protection. In this case the argument was over the question of rent payable in advance.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd April 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
Supreme Court, 24th April 2013
“When can an agricultural landlord turf out his tenant farmer? The answer to this question has ebbed and flowed since the Second World War, but one element of the latest attempt by the Scottish Parliament to redress the balance in favour of tenants has just been declared incompatible with Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) as offending landlords’ rights to property. The Supreme Court has so ruled, upholding the Second Division of the Court of Session’s ruling in March 2012.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The concept of the tolerated trespasser came about as a result of London Borough of Brent v Burrows [1996] 1 WLR 1448. It is a concept familiar to housing lawyers, and one whose demise was little mourned. It caused much argument, litigation and confusion in housing law. The amendments introduced by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 were intended (by ensuring that a secure tenancy did not come to an end before execution of any possession order) to be the final nail on the coffin of the tolerated trespasser. As a concept, they would no longer exist.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 23rd April 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“This important case deals with the approach a leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) should take in relation to applications for dispensation from complying with the consultation requirements.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 23rd April 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024