header-logo header-logo

Civil way: 8 July 2016

08 July 2016 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 7706 / Categories: Features , Civil way
printer mail-detail
  • Landlords bless Supreme Court.
  • Sherlock Holmes wrong on fact finding.
  • New service charge code.
  • Legal aid goes soft on MIAMs.
  • London more expensive.
  • Direct access: ecstasy and agony.

PHEW!

Private landlords have escaped. Where it is a public authority seeking possession of premises, the occupier can defend on the ground of proportionality (Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 1 All ER 285). The Supreme Court scotched the idea that the same defence could be run with a private tenancy on 15 June 2016 in McDonald v McDonald and others [2016] UKSC 28, [2016] All ER (D) 81 (Jun) in which even the Residential Landlords Association poked in its nose as intervener in writing. Private landlords do deserve a break what with retaliatory eviction, the deposit protection minefield, a prescribed notice under s 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and more traps than a mice farm on April Fool’s Day to contend with (see Civil Way 165 NLJ 7671, p 17, 165

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll