“A landowner’s right to recover possession of his property does not infringe the human rights of squatters, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Not all squatters are bad, a senior judge has said, as he suggested an Englishman’s home is no longer his castle.”
Daily Telegraph, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
The Daily Telegraph have recently introduced a limited paywall. Users will be permitted to view 20 Daily Telegraph articles per month for free, after which they will need to pay a subscription fee to access content.
“At a time when the bedroom tax is coming to dominate debates about housing and fairness in our society, Liz Davies considers the options available to local councils in resisting this policy of central government.”
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 1st July 2013
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
“Last year Arthur Moore and I ran a seminar in Chancery Lane on the (then) vexed question of to what extent Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights impacted upon private landlords’ possession claims.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“Reading BC v Holt is an important case on the approach to be taken by the courts when making possession orders under Ground 16 (and since 1/4/12, 15A) of the Housing Act 1985.”
NearlyLegal, 23rd June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Counsel for the defendant in this recent case, heard at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court, provided a skeleton argument on the morning of the hearing, ignoring the set aside (it being conceded there was no merit in this) but rather arguing that the Court’s lack of discretion to delay execution of a possession order by over six weeks was incompatible with Article 8. It followed that he was seeking a transfer to the High Court for declaration purposes (CPR 30.3(2)(g)).”
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.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
“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
Regina (JL) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWCA Civ 449; [2013] WLR (D) 161
The occupant of a house was entitled to rely upon article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, entitling the occupant to a proportionality review, by way of opposition to the enforcement of a possession order already obtained by the owner in the exceptional circumstances where there had been a substantial change of circumstances which gave rise for the first time to an article 8 issue which neither was nor could have been pursued prior to the making of the possession order.
WLR Daily, 30th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In R (JL) v SSD [2013] EWCA Civ 449, the Court of Appeal ‘broke new ground’ by considering how Article 8 applied to the stage at which possession orders are enforced.”
NearlyLegal, 1st May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The High Court has ruled that protesters should be evicted from part of the University of Sussex.”
BBC News, 29th March 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“This was an appeal of a Circuit Judge’s finding that LB Brent’s possession claim under Ground 16, Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 failed because the property was reasonably needed to accommodate those living there. Very unusually, the appeal was in large part a challenge to the Judge’s findings of fact.”
NearlyLegal, 24th March 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Introductory tenancies require a notice under s.128 Housing Act 1996 to be served before possession proceedings. That notice shall inform the tenant of his right to request a review of the landlord’s decision to seek an order for possession and of the time within which such a request must be made. [s.128(6)]”
NearlyLegal, 26th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“A rare Rent Act 1977 possession case, with possession sought as ‘reasonably required’ under Case 9 Of Schedule 15 of the 1977 Act via section 98(1).”
NearlyLegal, 24th January 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Travellers living at the side of the road near the former Dale Farm site face being evicted for a second time after Basildon council, in Essex, voted to take ‘direct action’ to remove the families who remain.”
The Guardian, 19th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Birmingham CC v Ashton is a case which illustrates the difficulty that judges face when they are invited to make possession orders on the grounds of nuisance and anti-social behaviour against tenants with mental health problems.”
NearlyLegal, 16th December 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“It seemed a fairly straightforward hearing – a pre-trial review in an anti-social behaviour possession claim prior to a one-day trial at the end of December – with both my opponent and I agreeing that the matter was ready to proceed.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 30th December 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“On 29 November 2012 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Birmingham City Council v Mr Neil Ashton [2012] EWCA Civ 1557. Though the facts of the case were similar to many anti-social behaviour cases heard around the country it did throw up three particularly interesting areas of confirmation and clarification.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd December 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Souglides v Tweedie and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1546; [2012] WLR (D) 367
“The reference in section 9(1)(a) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 to ‘successors in title’ referred to successors in title to the lease to which the interest being conferred by the option was reversionary. Accordingly, the successor had to be a successor to the original lessee in respect of the same title, namely that lease.”
WLR Daily, 4th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024