‘The Court of Appeal has recently considered whether the “reasonable recipient” test in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19 applies to notices served pursuant to s8 Housing Act 1988.’
St Ives Chambers, 20th February 2020
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘Does an error in a section 8 notice – in this case specifically as to the earliest date on which possession proceedings can begin – invalidate the notice?’
Nearly Legal, 22nd February 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In this case comment, Michael Cox of CMS comments on the judgment handed down in the matter of The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (Formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2019] UKSC 46. Michael is a senior associate in the Real Estate Dispute team at CMS. Michael advises on all aspects of property law, with a particular emphasis on development advice and dispute resolution.’
UKSC Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This was the appeal of a First Tier Tribunal decision on Ms Salva’s application for a rent repayment order.’
Nearly Legal, 19th January 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is still relatively uncontroversial to suggest that, as a matter of public law, public authorities must comply with legislation. But what should public authorities do where such compliance would actually result in a breach of a right under the European Convention on Human Rights? In RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 52, the Supreme Court held that it is not unconstitutional for a public authority to disapply a provision of subordinate legislation to avoid breaching a convention right. This is necessary under the Human Rights Act 1998. Public authorities will be looking to the horizon to see what impact this decision may have more widely.’
Law Society's Gazette, January 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘And so, we reach the end of another year. And what a year it has been. As well perhaps the most tumultuous period in British politics for decades, this year saw the first ever image taken of a black hole, a victory for the England men’s cricket team at the World Cup, the discovery of a new species of prehistoric small-bodied human in the Philippines and signs that humpback whale numbers in the South Atlantic have bounced back thanks to intensive conservation efforts. And the law? Well, rather a lot has happened really. As the festive season draws near, what better way is there to celebrate than to rewind the clock and relive the 10 cases which have defined 2019?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th December 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The director of a lettings and property management agency who defrauded more than £230,000 from the landlords and tenants that were his clients has received a two-year prison sentence, following an investigation by Southampton City Council’s Trading Standards Service.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th December 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In which the Upper Tribunal gives the First Tier Tribunal a thorough ticking off over its decision on a rent repayment order application.’
Nearly Legal, 5th December 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames v Moss (2019) EWHC 3261 (Ch). Ever since Jones v London Borough of Southwark (2016) EWHC 457 (Ch) (our report), the position on water rates taken as rent by a number of London Councils and Housing Associations under agreements with Thames Water has been conflicted. Some councils (including Southwark) refunded tenants the ‘discount’ that they had received. Other councils did nothing, and frantically tried to settle and defence to rent arrears possession proceedings that raised the water rates point (not always successfully), in the hope and expectation that someone else would take another case to the High Court and overturn or distinguish Jones.’
Nearly Legal, 1st December 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Barber held that the Lundy Granite principle does not extend to an obligation to ‘top up’ a rent deposit fund, where sums had been withdrawn from the fund to pay rent. Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners shows how seemingly immaterial business decisions made when an entity is solvent will be thrown into relief when the same entity becomes insolvent. Here, the decision to ‘pay first, ask questions later’ from the deposit fund meant that the landlord effectively lost its priority ranking in respect of those rent payments; a priority it could otherwise have been entitled to. The case also demonstrates that the ambit of provable debts will continue to be construed broadly, while the category of administration expenses will be narrowly construed. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.’
Guildhall Chambers, 22nd November 2019
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘This is a rather odd case concerning possession of a farmhouse in the Forest of Dean. It had been first occupied by the defendant’s mother and step father in 1993. The terms of this were in dispute, but the rent was £155 and the step-father was to undertake repairs and maintenance to the property. The step-father did carry out some repairs, but he moved out in 2002, visiting and leaving some possessions there thereafter. The mother moved out in 2006. Various other family and friends lived at the property in subsequent years. The defendant had rented and bought property of his own, but took on repairs to the farmhouse and regarded it as his family home.’
Nearly Legal, 17th November 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This appeal was on the issue of whether a local authority and the First Tier Tribunal could take into account previous convictions that were spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in deciding whether an applicant for a Housing Act 2004 licence was a ‘fit and proper person’.’
Nearly Legal, 10th November 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th October 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Strategic and operational risks facing the social housing sector are on the rise, the Regulator of Social Housing’s Sector risk profile 2019 has suggested.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd October 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This is not really a housing case, being a commercial lease dispute, but there are a couple of points about relief from sanction and rent payments that are worthy of noting.’
Nearly Legal, 16th October 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This is worth a quick note from some comments and questions I have received after this post on a Rent Repayment Order (RRO). The issue is about the meaning of the requirement that an application for an RRO is brought within 12 months of a relevant offence.’
Nearly Legal, 30th September 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Where a landlord already has a possession order for rent arrears, but then seeks a warrant also on the basis of anti-social behaviour, the usual route has been for the landlord to ask the court to consider whether the warrant should be stayed in light of the allegations of ASB, even if the court would be minded to stay the warrant on the arrears. This was the approach in Sheffield City Council v Hopkins (2001) EWCA Civ 1023, which suggested a summary approach to fact finding in such cases.’
Nearly Legal, 22nd September 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
Pinsent Masons, 24th Septwmber 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Mrs Elanga Longane et al v Frank Mukahanana and Wealth Harbour Consulting Ltd LON/00AH/HMG/2018/0002 (Copy of decision). This FTT decision on a rent repayment order application raises a couple of interesting issues. First, when is an application for a licence actually made by a landlord. Second, who should a rent repayment order be made against where the ostensible landlord is a company, but the property is owned by the sole director of the company.’
Nearly Legal, 15th September 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023