Regina (Rowe and others) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Posted August 27th, 2015 in human rights, income tax, law reports, notification, partnerships, ultra vires by sally

Regina (Rowe and others) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 369

‘Partner payment notices issued by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners under paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 32 to the Finance Act 2014 were not unlawful.’

WLR Daily, 31st July 2015


Wandsworth London Borough Council v Tompkins and another – WLR Daily

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Tompkins and another [2015] EWCA Civ 846; [2015] WLR (D) 357

‘Where a local housing authority provided accommodation under a tenancy pursuant to its duty under Part VII (Homelessness) of the Housing Act 1996, the requirement in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985 which had to be satisfied in order for the tenancy to qualify as a secure tenancy (that the housing authority had to give notification that the tenancy “is to be regarded” as a secure tenancy), meant that the notification had to state that the tenancy was regarded as a secure tenancy at the date of grant and not at some unspecified date in the future.’

WLR Daily, 31st August 2015


Regina (NE) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court; Regina (NM) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court – WLR Daily

Regina (NE) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court; Regina (NM) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court [2015] EWHC 688 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 135

‘An appeal by way of case stated to the High Court pursuant to section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, rather than a challenge by way of judicial review, was generally the appropriate way in which to challenge a decision of a magistrates’ court dismissing an appeal under section 91E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 against an unsuccessful review of an order requiring a sexual offender to comply with the notification requirements under the Act indefinitely.’

WLR Daily, 20th March 2015


Proposed changes to S.21 – NearlyLegal

Posted February 9th, 2015 in bills, housing, landlord & tenant, news, notification, rent, repossession by sally

‘As well as the clauses introducing the retaliatory eviction proposals, the Government’s proposed amendments to the Deregulation Bill would make some other changes to s.21. The effects would be:

No s.21 notice can be served within the first 4 months of the shorthold tenancy, thus ending the all too widespread practice of serving a s.21 at the time the tenancy agreement is signed (though I’d still say that was probably caught by the deposit rules). The proposals also make clear that possession proceedings cannot be begun before 6 months from the start of the tenancy (that disposes of an idea some bright spark landlords had, that it was OK to start proceedings before 6 months so long as the possession order was made after the 6 month date).’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 8th February 2015


When notice is not required to succeed in an injury claim against a landlord – Zenith PI Blog

Posted February 5th, 2015 in appeals, landlord & tenant, news, notification, personal injuries by sally

‘The Appellant, (Edwards) rented a 2nd floor flat by way of an assured short hold tenancy from the Respondent (Kumarasamy). The Respondent was not the owner of the block of flats but had a long lease of the particular flat let to the Appellant. The Appellant suffered injury when he tripped over an uneven paving stone in the pathway ,between the front door of the block and the communal bins. The Respondent had received no notice of the defect prior to the accident. This was accepted.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 4th February 2015


Court of Appeal: Solicitors cannot recover costs if CFAs failed to comply with cancellation regulations – Litigation Futures

Posted February 2nd, 2015 in appeals, care homes, contracts, costs, fees, news, notification, personal injuries, solicitors by sally

‘Appeal judges have ruled that solicitors cannot recover their costs where conditional fee agreements (CFAs) fail to comply with the cancellation of contracts regulations, with a potential impact on a significant number of cases.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 2nd February 2015


Father treated ‘like Kafka character’ by Family Court – top judge – Daily Telegraph

Posted December 16th, 2014 in case management, family courts, injunctions, legal representation, news, notification by tracey

‘A father who was banned from his own street, cut off from his children for five months, with no opportunity to defend himself, and then arrested for text messaging his son, was treated like a character from a Kafka novel, a senior judge has admitted.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 15th December 2015


Osman and another v Natt and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 2nd, 2014 in appeals, enfranchisement, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases, notification by sally

Osman and another v Natt and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1520; [2014] WLR (D) 505

‘On its proper interpretation the statutory scheme of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 required the court to hold that a purported notice under section 13 claiming the right to collective enfranchisement was invalid by virtue of the non-compliance with section 13(3)(e) in failing to identify all the qualifying tenants and to state their addresses in the property. The intention of the legislature as to the consequences of non-compliance with the statutory procedure had to be ascertained in the light of the statutory scheme as a whole.’

WLR Daily, 26th November 2014


Stop Retaliating! – NearlyLegal

Posted November 27th, 2014 in bills, complaints, housing, landlord & tenant, news, notification, repairs, time limits by sally

‘The Tenancies Reform Bill has now been formally published following its second reading. The Bill has changed substantially from the original version that was put forward by Sarah Teather MP and drafted by Shelter. We commented on the Bill before as we had seen the version produced at first reading. The Bill has now benefitted from the gentle caress of the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office so it looks entirely different.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 27th November 2014


Notice period doubled from next spring for all marriages and civil partnerships – Free Movement

Posted November 25th, 2014 in civil partnerships, fraud, immigration, marriage, news, notification by sally

‘It has been announced today [24 November] by Minister for Security and Immigration James Brokenshire that Part 4 of the Immigration Act 2014 is to be brought into full effect on 2 March 2015. This amends the procedure for marriage and civil partnership for everyone (not just foreign nationals) and creates new powers for duties to report sham marriages and the investigation and preventing of sham marriages.’

Full story

Free Movement, 24th November 2014


My Achy, Breaky Tenancy: Supreme Court rules it human rights-compatible for one tenant’s unilateral Notice to Quit to end a joint tenancy – Zenith Chambers

‘Something that can take some housing practitioners by surprise is a Notice to Quit served, not by a landlord on a tenant, but by a tenant on a landlord (sometimes referred to by housing officers as a “notice to terminate”).’

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 13th November 2014


Spencer v Taylor- Some Analysis – NearlyLegal

Posted August 4th, 2014 in appeals, landlord & tenant, news, notification, repossession, Supreme Court by sally

‘We have already reported briefly on the Supreme Court decision to refuse permission to appeal to the tenant in the case of a Spencer v Taylor on the grounds that no new points of law were raised.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 3rd August 2014


A peculiar case of priorities – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted June 26th, 2014 in appeals, banking, land registration, mortgages, news, notification by sally

‘In Bank of Scotland v Joseph [2014] EWCA Civ 28, 1 P & Cr 18, the Court of Appeal was faced with an issue of priority in relation to a unilateral notice. It arose out of a rather curious set of facts.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 4th June 2014


They think it’s all over … – NearlyLegal

‘We covered the case of Beech v Birmingham CC in the High Court here. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard on 11/6/2014 and judgement was given on 17/6/2014.

I will not repeat the facts here except to say that the appeal was narrowed down to only two grounds of challenge: namely that the notice to quit was procured from the late Mrs Warren under undue influence from the housing officer, Mr Pumphrey, and that it had been given when no formal mental capacity assessment had been carried out, in breach of the Code of Practice issued under s.42(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the ‘public law defence’).’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 22nd June 2014


Regina (Allensway Recycling Ltd and others) v Environment Agency – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in environmental protection, law reports, notification, warrants, waste by michael

Regina (Allensway Recycling Ltd and others) v Environment Agency [2014] EWHC 1638 (Admin);  [2014] WLR (D)  225

‘Section 108(6) of the Environment Act 1995, when read together with Schedule 18 to that Act, only required seven days’ notice to have been given prior to the issue of a warrant for entry and inspection relating to residential premises where that warrant was to be issued under conditions (a) or (b) of paragraph 2(2) of the Schedule. There was no such notice requirement in relation to a warrant issued under conditions (c), (d) or (e).’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2014


L Batley Pet Products Limited (Appellant) v North Lanarkshire Council (Respondent) – Supreme Court

L Batley Pet Products Limited (Appellant) v North Lanarkshire Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 27 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 8th May 2014


Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc – WLR Daily

Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc: [2014] EWHC 1156 (Ch);   [2014] WLR (D)  173

‘The terms of section 12(a) of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) Master Agreement (Multi Currency-Cross Border Form) (1992 ed) were mandatory and any notice purportedly served pursuant to those provisions had to have been given by the means therein prescribed, and by reference to and in accordance with the contact information provided in part 4 of the schedule to the agreement, subject to any amendment properly notified pursuant to section 12(b). If the schedule did not provide certain information necessary for service by a prescribed method, the contract was to be construed as limiting the prescribed methods to those expressly permitted by the schedule unless and until the missing information was notified under section 12(b) or the contract was formally amended.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2014


Patel and another v Peters and others – WLR Daily

Patel and another v Peters and others [2014] EWCA Civ 335; [2014] WLR (D) 147

‘Where the surveyor of a party involved in a dispute over building works affecting adjoining properties served a request under section 10(7) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 on the surveyor of the other party that he act effectively in respect of the subject matter referred to in the request within ten days, after which, if he did not so act, the requesting surveyor became entitled to act ex parte in respect of the matter, a continuing state of affairs was created so that the other party’s surveyor might still act effectively after that ten-day period, thereby precluding the requesting surveyor from acting ex parte, provided that the requesting surveyor had not yet proceeded so to act.’

WLR Daily, 27th March 2014


Regina (Thapa) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted March 18th, 2014 in immigration, law reports, notification by tracey

Regina (Thapa) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2014] EWHC 659 (Admin);  [2014] WLR (D)  133

‘It was incumbent upon an immigration official when making a decision as to enforcement action under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that he should communicate outline reasons including at least the gist of the evidence behind his decision to the person who was subjected to it.’

WLR Daily, 11th March 2014


Eclairs Group Ltd and another v JKX Oil & Gas plc and others – WLR Daily

Eclairs Group Ltd and another v JKX Oil & Gas plc and others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 373

“The ‘reasonable cause to believe’ provision in section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 operated for the purposes of all its subsections, but operated only in relation to the addressee of a notice. Questions directed to a person who had or was believed to have an interest in the company’s shares about the interests of another person had to be questions about interests in the addressee’s shares, not other shares. It was permissible to ask and receive an answer to the direct question ‘Does [the third party] have an interest?’.”

WLR Daily, 30th August 2013