‘GCN’s Jonathan Holt sets out below the background and detail to the recent emergence of a potential argument employable by those facing a warrant for possession, whether it be as the result of rent arrears or a failure to make mortgage payments.’
Nearly Legal, 13th July 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In this alerter Hannah Curtain & George Mallet consider the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald (by her litigation friend) v McDonald and Ors [2016] UKSC 28.’
Henderson Chambers, June 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘A few years ago now, I was instructed by Luton Law Centre in a series of possession cases brought by BPHA (a housing association) in Luton and Bedford County Courts. The claims were all for rent arrears, brought variously on Housing Act (HA) 1988 Sch 2 Grounds 8, 10 and 11. Their common feature was that, in all of them, BPHA had (apparently unwittingly) been raising the rent in breach of the terms.’
Nearly Legal, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Some county court cases reported in the indispensable ‘Housing: Recent Developments’ in Legal Action for May 2016. Cases involve introductory tenancies, deposits, harassment and illegal eviction.’
Nearly Legal, 12th June 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘What gives you the right? We are familiar with rights claiming, it comes easily to our lips when we believe we are entitled to something—to respect, to our fair share. Rights are fighting words. We invoke them when we have been wronged, when a situation has become intolerable. Rights claims are a way of fighting for control.’
OUP Blog, 9th June 2016
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘April 2016 is a month of big changes for people living and working in the UK. A number of new laws and policies are coming into force, affecting just about everyone from public sector workers to dog owners. Here’s what the new laws could mean for you.’
The Independent, 3rd April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Jones v London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch). Quite a lot of councils have agreements with water suppliers under which the council will collect water charges from their tenants, effectively as an addition to the rent. This case concerned a challenge to the nature and validity of Southwark’s agreement, at least before 2013.’
Nearly Legal, 5th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘The ‘without prejudice’ privilege refers to the inadmissibility of any party communications targeted toward settlement. The objective of this privilege is to encourage parties engaging in settlement consideration, by ensuring any information disclosed in the pursuit of settlement cannot be submitted in litigation proceedings (see Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tomkins v GLC [1989] 1 AC 1280).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th February 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Litigants in person (LiPs) can benefit from the ‘without prejudice’ rule even if they do not know what it means, the Court of Appeal has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 19th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Landlords in England are being reminded that there is less than a month to go before “right to rent” rules go live.’
Home Office, 8th January 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘The law of enfranchisement is very complicated. A whole industry has evolved to try to interpret the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) and the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) and put them into practice. The cost and frustration to leaseholders of such a convoluted process is considerable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 3rd December 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘While many practitioners are familiar with the general workings of lease renewals under the ’54 Act, there is one aspect of the law that is often overlooked: interim rent under sections 24A to D. Andy Creer takes a look at the law.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th November 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A term would only be implied into a detailed commercial contract if its implication were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or so obvious that went without saying.’
WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This was a Court of Appeal hearing on an appeal on costs. The original case was the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of some £6,000 and interest. The landlord also claimed for physical damage to the property by the tenant amounting to some £20,000 and consequential loss of rent. The tenant agreed some £6,000 in rent arrears, but denied the property damage. The tenant counterclaimed for failure to repair the property and breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant also challenged the landlord’s identity as landlord and the interest rate claimed.’
Nearly Legal, 9th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A second appeal from a s.204 County Court appeal that addressed the council’s decision-making on whether the property from which Ms Samuels had become homeless was affordable (and thus, whether she was intentionally homeless for failing to pay the full rent).’
Nearly Legal, 8th November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023