header-logo header-logo

Law digest: Landlord & tenant

01 January 2009
Issue: 7350+7351 / Categories: Features , Property , Housing
printer mail-detail

Knowsley Housing Trust v White [2008] UKHL 70, [2008] All ER (D) 115 (Dec)

Under the Housing Act 1988, an assured tenancy subject to a possession order ends only when the order is executed. Where a tenant does not comply with the terms of a suspended possession order

but makes late full payment, he is not prevented by s 85 of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) from returning to the court for a variation. A secure tenant’s right to rely on a notice exercising his right to buy is not removed, but merely suspended, by s 121 of HA 1985 when a possession order is made; his right is reinstated when the order is discharged and the tenancy revived.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll