header-logo header-logo

09 July 2010
Issue: 7425 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Landlord & tenant

Metropolitan Housing Trust v Hadjazi [2010] EWCA Civ 750, [2010] All ER (D) 09 (Jul)

Schedule 2, Pt II, to the Housing Act 1988, so far as material, provided: “Grounds on which court may order possession ... Ground 14A, The dwelling house was occupied (whether alone or with others) by [a married couple …] and—(a) one or both of the partners is a tenant of the dwelling house, (b) the landlord who is seeking possession is…a registered social landlord…(c) one partner has left the dwelling house because of violence or threats of violence by the other towards—(i) that partner…(d) the court is satisfied that the partner who has left is unlikely to return …”

There was nothing ambiguous about either the concept or the wording of ground 14A which could properly attract a principle of interpretation favouring the party to a marriage or civil partnership or equivalent relationship who had been violent or threatening towards the other party to the relationship, thereby causing the other party to leave the property in which they had lived together. Ground

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll