Child 'requires accommodation'. R (G) v Southwark [2009] UKHL 26 was the appeal to the House of Lords of this Court of Appeal judgment. At issue was whether Southwark could effectively avoid its s.20 Children Act duty to accommodate a homeless child by referral to the Housing Department by way of application under Part VII Housing Act 1996.
Get Quote
Southwark LBC v Mills [2001] 1 A.C. 1 is a Commercial Property Law case concerning Quiet Enjoyment. Facts: The Tenants lived in a block of flats owned by Southwark Council. The Tenants complained that there was a lack of soundproofing and that, as a result, they were able to hear the noise made by Tenants living in neighbouring flats.
Get Quote
29 Diciembre 2011...Ltd. v. Weal/ & Cullen Nurseries Ltd., [1993] O.J. No. 1895 (Gen.Div.). 67 Cambridge Water Company v. ... In Southwark LBC v Mills [2001] 1 AC 1 at 20, Lord Millett said..... The Symbiosis of Property and English Environmental Law – Property Rights in a Public Law Context. United Kingdom; The Modern Law Review No. …
Get Quote
Allsop v North Tyneside MBC (1992) 90 LGR 462 170, 176Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 400Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co Ltd
Get Quote
Camden LBC [1998] 22 EG 150. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that the landlord was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment because the sound insulation between neighbouring flats was so inadequate that even normal residential use by the tenant's neighbours disturbed her in her enjoyment of her own flat. Similarly, in …
Get Quote
Mills was a tenant in a council flat which was built in 1919 and owned by Southwark LBC. Mills complained under a provision within the tenancy agreement that the noise insulation between the flats was wholly inadequate as …
Get Quote
Introduction. 1. The main issue in this appeal is whether on 1 July 2015 ("the material day") Ludgate House, Southwark, was a single hereditament for rating purposes. The Upper Tribunal (Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President, and Mr PD McCrea FRICS) ("the UT"), on an appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England ("the VTE"), held that ...
Get Quote
MICHAEL FORD QC: LIST OF MAIN REPORTED CASES [Cases are listed with most recent first]1. British Airways v BALPA[2019] EWCA Civ 1663, [2020] IRLR 43: CA upheld argument that union was not required to provide all details of 2. Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402, [2019] IRLR 102, CA: case on term-time teachers and annual leave; …
Get Quote
Cases: St Albans City and DC v International Computers Ltd [1996] 4 All ER 481 Beta computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd [1996] SLT 604 Southwark LBC v IBM Ltd [2011] EWHC 549 Ferrington v McAfee, 2010 WL3910169(N. D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) French German Case ( 2U 1230/91) Other Sources:
Get Quote
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Wignall referred to Southwark LBC v Mills (2001) 1 AC 1 for the proposition that in the ordinary case, in the absence of some other relevant feature, the ordinary use of a residential flat cannot give rise to an actionable nuisance even if the noise generated by that nuisance constitutes a considerable ...
Get Quote
Southwark LBC v Akhtar[2017] UKUT 150 (LC) Southwark LBC appealed a decision of the FTT that service charge was not payable. The UT held that a notice demanding a payment on account was valid. ... In 2011 a retirement notice was served under s.49(1)(b) of the Act by the father requesting his son succeed him as tenant. The …
Get Quote
Francis v Southwark LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1418,1December 2011; [2012] HLR 1. Secure tenancies, right to buy, no remedy in damages. RD January 2012. Freeholders of 69 Marina, St Leonards-on-Sea – Robinson, Simpson and Palmer v Oram and Ghoorun [2011] EWCA Civ 1258, 8 November 2011; [2012] HLR 12, [2012] L&TR 4.
Get Quote
The following cases are referred to in this decision: Aviva Ground Rents v Williams [2020] UKUT 111 (LC) Aviva Ground Rent Investors GP Ltd v Williams [2023] UKSC 6; [2023] AC 855 Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17; [2015] 1 WLR 1661 Gater v Wellington Real Estate Ltd [2014] UKUT 561 (LC); [2015] L & TR 19 Hayes v Willoughby [2013] …
Get Quote
Hence in the case Southwark LBC v Tanner ([2001] 1 AC 1, HL, ... On the other hand, in Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499, AC, ... Lord Denning explains this in Warren v Keen [1954] 1 QB 15: "[the tenant] must take proper care of the place. ... He must clean the chimneys, when necessary and also the windows.
Get Quote
The relevant date for the assessment of both the first and second limbs of the threshold criteria in care cases under section 31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 was at the date of the care order application or if temporary arrangements had been continuously in force from an earlier date, the date when those arrangements were initiated.. Mr Justice …
Get Quote
Huzrat v Hounslow LBC [2014] HLR 70, Pryce v Southwark LBC [2013] 1WLR 996, Dharmaraj v Hounslow LBC [2011] HLR 18 (Court of Appeal), De-Winter Heald v Brent LBC [2010] 1 WLR 990, Novitskaya v Brent LBC & Sec of State [2010] HLR 21, Wilson v Ashford BC [2011] Env LR D1 (Admin Court), Ugiagbe v Southwark LBC [2009] HLR 35 (Court …
Get Quote
Southwark LBC v I BM UK L t d [2011] EWHC 549 • CRA 2015 has specific c at egory of ' digital c ont en t ' so prot ection is clear f or . consumer s. • ' Money con sider ation '? • Esso Pe troleum L t d v Cust oms and Ex ci se Commissioners [1976] 1 WLR 1 (HL)
Get Quote
The reviewing officers had applied the test laid down in Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30, in which "vulnerable" was determined to mean "significantly more vulnerable than ordinarily vulnerable" as a result of being homeless. The two men alleged that the decisions in their cases had applied too high a threshold when considering ...
Get Quote
Williams v Southwark LBC [2000] LGR 646, Ch; Field v Leeds CC (2000) 32 HLR 618, CA; Baxter v Camden LBC (No 2) [2001] 1 A.C. 1, (1999) 32 HLR 148, HL; Portsmouth CC v Bryant (2000) 32 HLR 906, CA; Gay v Enfield LBC [2000] 1 WLR 673, CA; Manchester CC v Cochrane [1999] 1 WLR 809, CA; Wandsworth LBC v Osei-Bonsu [1999] 1 All ER 265, …
Get Quote
Claimant May Sue the Occupier Where... 1. The occupier exercises control over the creator of the nuisance o Matania v Provincial Bank [1936] 2 All ER 633, CA. 2. The occupier was in control or possession of the property o Cocking v Eacott [2016] EWCA Civ 140 3. The occupier adopts or continues a trespasser's nuisance o Sedleigh-Denfield v O ...
Get Quote
The Machinery of Justice in England. Sixth edition. By JacksonR. M., LL.D., F.B.A., Emeritus Downing Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge, etc. [Cambridge: at the ...
Get Quote
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Southwark LBC V Mills - definition, Lavender v Betts, kenny v Preen and more. Fresh features from the #1 AI-enhanced learning platform.
Get Quote
6 Harrow LBC v Qazi [2004] 1 AC 983; Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] AC 465; [2006] UKHL 10; Birmingham CC v Doherty [2009] 1 AC 367; in 2009, there were no fewer than nine significant Court of Appeal decisions on the issues raised by these cases. 7 See, in particular, Connors v UK (2004) 40 EHRR 189; McCann v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 40 …
Get Quote
Lord Millett: at p. 22. Where activities constitute a nuisance, the general principle is that persons directly responsible are liable but so too is anyone who authorised them. In order to be liable for authorising a nuisance, landlords must either participate directly or they must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property.
Get Quote
Court: United Kingdom House of Lords. Date: Nov 1, 2001. Cited By: 36. ...time of the review. In R v Southwark London Borough Council, Ex p Hughes (1998) 30 HLR 1082, in a case decided under the Housing Act 1985, before a statutory right of review was given... Abdulrahman Mohamed v.
Get Quote
4. The following are unexceptionable propositions. (a) An award of costs on an indemnity basis is not intended to be penal and regard must be had to what in the circumstances is fair and reasonable: Reid Minty v Taylor [2002] 1 WLR 2800, Paragraph 20. (b) Indemnity costs are not limited to cases in which the court wishes to express …
Get Quote
This is a fundamental principle of the English law of landlord and tenant. In Hart v. Windsor (1844) 12 M. & W. 68, 87 Parke B. said: "There is no contract, still less a …
Get Quote
As Jonathan Parker LJ said in Southwark LBC v. Kofi-Adu [2006] EWCA Civ 281 : "the risk [of frequent judicial interventions during the evidence] is that the judge's descent into the arena … may so hamper his ability properly to evaluate and weigh the evidence before him as to impair his judgment, and may for that reason render the trial ...
Get Quote
1. These proceedings relate to the provision of software and associated consultancy services by IBM UK Ltd ("IBM") to the London Borough of Southwark ("Southwark") in 2006 and 2007. The software was to be provided in connection with the implementation of a Master Data Management ("MDM") system within Southwark which …
Get Quote
LBC v Mills [2001] 1 A.C. 1). Examples of a 'substantial interference' are removing the doors and windows of the leased premises ( Lavender v Betts [1942] 2 All E.R. 72); cutting the supply of gas and
Get Quote